Allan Bloom Shakespeare's Bloom II RICHARD SHAKESPEARE NOT ONLY presents uswith the spectacle ofa man becoming a god (Julius Caesar) but in Richard II also permits us to witnessa godbecoming a man. As aconsequence ofwhat one might callpolitical logic, Richard was thought to be, and thought himself tobe, somehowdivine: to have the right and the capacityto rulemen a king ought to have a superior nature, must be a god or the repre.. sentative of a god; because he must be,he is. The playtells the tale ofRichard's unkinging and hisagonyashe facesthe human condition forthe firsttime. Richard II isalso the tale of Henry Bolingbroke'sgraspingofthe crownand thereby his lossof innocence. He thought he wouldpurge the throne ofastain left on it byRichard's having committed the sin ofCain, but he is constrained to commit the same sin in order to found his rule. Instead of becoming a god, he becomes a murderer. The king he became could never be the king Richard was. Thus these two tales join to tell a third tale, that ofkingship in itsdivine claims and criminal foundations. I In spite of what some critics say, there can be little doubt that Shakespeareteaches usthat Richard isasort oflegitimate tyrant who deserves to be deposed. Moreover, he chooses to present the divine rightofkingsasthe underpinningofRichard'sruleandtherebyteaches that theprinciple isresponsibleforhistyrannical deeds.Richardnever understands the real conditions of rule and believes that he isunac.. countable. This does not mean that Shakespeare holds there to be 83 1 nothingdivine inkingship; nordoes itmeanthatShakespearebelieved thatonce Richard's undisputed title to rule vanishes, there could ever be an unproblematic legitimacy in this world. But that isprecisely the burdenof the play: legitimacy isaproblem, andRichard, God's vicar, is an artificial contrivance which disguises rather than resolves the problem.' Similarly, the fact that Bolingbroke's accusations are true does not mean that his motives are good or that he understands what he isabout. He entertains the baseless certainty of a tribunal beyond the king's to which he canappeal, whichwill vindicate him and give him ground on which to stand. And he wants rule; his accusations are pretextsfor supplanting the king. He does not wish to reform Richard but to replace him. Strangely, though, Shakespeare seems to have more sympathy with Henry's ambition than his indignation, for the perfect justice demanded by the latter passion has no foundation in politics andthequestforit isevenpernicious, while theformer passion is an expression of the manliness so lacking in this regime and so necessary to political virtue. Such manliness-to be found in the Romanheroesand in Henry'sson Henry-rebelsagainstrule byothers and, properly educated and channeled, is the surest foundation of freedom. Richard becomes manly only for a moment at the very end when it istoo late. And Henry, who began by being manly, loseshis nerve when he realizes the consequences of what he has done. He cannot bear to accept the responsibility, tries to return to the old pieties andbecomeshumble. Buthispride hasset in motiontendencies whichare to culminate in awhollynew world, one in whichthe pride of noble men will have its place and rule will require prudence and courage as well as birth. In keeping with the purely conventional character of a regime where the ruler is absolute and his title is only birth supported by a 'HenryIVdoesnot affectusasausurperwhosecrime isthe causeofhismisery.The presentationofRichard and Henry istoo carefullybankedwith extenuatingconsid erations to allowfor simple blame ofthe latteror respect forthe former. The play's impact isnot such as to induce reverence for the king (either the old one or the new); rather, there isa subversive element in the detachment it induces. We pity the toothless descendantofRichardthe Lion-Hearted; he isshown topossessneither divine nor humanstrength, and he no longer inspiresawe. We experienceno horror at what Henry does, but on the other hand, he does not inherit Richard's former sacredness. Moreover, the reader ofthe Histories asawhole can hardly believe that Shakespeare thoughtJohnorRichardto berulerssuperiortoHenry VorHenryVIII. Shakespeare's viewofkingship and legitimacy issubtle and cannotbereducedeither to reverence fortraditionorbald rationalism. Butone thing iscertain: Henry V and HenryVIIIfaceuptotheirpriestsasneitherJohnnor Richard IIdoes;and thisseems to beat the core of the teaching of these plays. 2 RICHARD 11 fiction of divine right, the atmosphere of Richard II is suffused with artificiality of speech and deed. This artificiality isparticularly to be remarked in the relationships among human beings. At the outset it istaken forgrantedthat the justman istobeprovedintrialbycombat and that God, just as He is immediately present in the king, will directly indicate where the truth lies by the victory in arms. Divine action and brute forcepreemptentirely the fieldproperlygoverned by prudence. God is just and provides a law behind which He stands, but human reason cannot penetrate to His reasons and playsno role in the system of justice. Richard, despite his fears that the result of the combat will inculpate him, isconstrained by the rules of honor to permit it. But this aborted combaton St. Lambert's dayin the lists at Coventry is the last trial by combat England will ever see. When Richard II recognizesthat the risksare too great forhim and halts it, he unwittingly brings the era ofchivalry, the era ofChristian knights inaugurated bythe firstRichard, the Lion...Hearted, to itsend. ByAct IVthe challenges ofthe lordshave becomeemptyblusterand aparody ofwhat they had been. They willnever be committed to a test. New ways of settling disputes and determining the right will have to be found. Thus at the outset we see "medieval" England, but we also see that it ismoribund. A criminalkingagainstwhom there isno recourse isopposed to an ambitious potential successorwho comesever closer tochallengingthe sacredperson ofthe kinghimself. And the supports of the old order-represented by the dukes of Lancaster and York arethemselvesoldand have lostconviction. Lancasterpassivelyleaves the issueto heaven and dies, while York,who isreallyacomic figure, provides the transition to the new order. The principle of the old order is enunciated by Gaunt in his discussion with the Duchess of Gloucester (I, ii), and he embodies its dignity. One must bear with insults and apparent injustices in this world in the conviction that they are expressions of God's infinite goodness. Unswerving loyalty and faith against all the evidence of the senses and merely human reason is the subject's proper posture. God's isthe quarrel; for God's substitute, His deputy anointed in his sight, Hath caus'd his death; the which ifwrongfully Let heaven revenge, for I may never lift An angry arm against his minister. [I, ii, 39-43] But the duchess represents the problem in Gaunt's principle and the countervailingprinciple. Her husbandhasbeen murdered, and he was 3 Gaunt's brother. Outraged family feeling ought to seek vengeance. The ordinary sentiments, directly experienced by all normal human beings, are suppressed in favor of a purely arbitrary duty to obey the king. Whereas all the principal men in Richard II are artificial, and none particulary admirable, the three women in the play (Richard's queen and the Duchess ofYorkin addition to the DuchessofGlouces.. ter) are all both natural and admirable. They love their husbands and their children. Humanity, banished bythe men, seems to have taken refuge in the women. For varying but related reasons these women cannot depend on the men in their families; and in their sufferings theydonotappear to hope inGod. Theyendure, and intheirfortitude they provide a measure for the failings of the men to whom they are most nearly related-the Duchess ofGloucester to Gaunt, the queen to the king, the Duchess of York to the Duke of York. In the scene under discussion the audience cannot but side with the Duchess of Gloucester against Gaunt, nor can one help but feel that ifGaunts are the subjects, the rulers will be Richards. Disarming good men is equivalent to arming evil men. Moreover, there isno doubt that the first two acts are intended to establish Richard as an evil king who deserves to lose his throne. Heisshown tobeamurderer, athief, awastrelsurroundedbyflatterers, lacking in all the familial pieties-a monarch without care or con.. science. He is convicted before our eyesof all the accusations made against him, and this portrait is relieved by no charming features. Bolingbroke's schemes are thereby given the color of justice. Bythe end of Act II power and loyalty have slipped awayfrom Richard as a rightful consequence of his crimes. But even if Bolingbroke is right in deposing Richard, that fact alone does not suffice to make him king. He has justice on his side, as well as the talent to govern in these troubled times, a secondary title of inheritance, the consent of 2 the nobles, and the adherence of the people. But all of this does not quite add up to Richard's indisputable family title and the sense of divine right apparently attached to it. Henry's problem isposed and solved in comic fashion by York, the last remaining son of Edward III and the last remaining fragment of the old regime. Although he has reproved his nephew Richard for depriving Henry of his inheritance, as Lord Governor in Richard's absence he loyally forbids Henry entry into England and treats him as a rebel. But he possessesno power and certainly lacks the energy 2Bolingbrokeisnextinline to the successionafterthe infant EarlofMarch, grandson of the Duke ofClarence, Edward Ill's second son. Cf. Richard II, I, i, 120-21; iv, 36-37, New Variorum edition, ed. Black (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1955). 4 RICHARD II or the conviction to be a martyr to Richard's cause. So he declares himself neuter and invites the rebels to spend the night at his place. York'sneutralitysymbolizesthe exhaustionofthe oldorder. He solves his own problem by ending up a fanatic adherent of the new king, acting as though Henry were the old king. The example of Henry's change from subject to ruler teaches a lesson which Yorkdesperately triestosuppress,one fromwhichothersubjectswillnonethelessprofit. II Suddenly, at the beginning ofAct III, Richard, who isno longer really king and isbeginning to realizeit, becomes interesting. As he descends to the estate of mere man, his soul isinspired by the poetic muse. It is as though Shakespeare wished to tell us that the most divine in man is man. He provides Richard with the play's most beautiful lines to allow him to voice questions about what he might really be when he discovers he is not what convention told him he is. He never succeeds in finding himself, but we see the articulation ofhis soul ashe gropes toward his goal. We do not find that Richard isever good, but we do find him touching. Richard returns to England from the Irish wars to find his ne.. glected country tom by rebellion. He speaksconfidently to the earth of England which he takes to be animate and loyal, reminding it of his expectation that its flora and fauna will take up the cause of its rightfulking. WhenchidedbyhisepiscopaladviserCarlisle, who tells him that God helps those who help themselves, he responds bycom.. paring himself to the sun and announces that for every rebel soldier God provides Richard with a fighting angel. But when he hears that his Welsh troops have departed, he becomes disconsolate, only to regain confidence when he thinks of his uncle York's troops. Again hismood waverswhenhe expects tohearbadnewsfromScroop. Now he takes the tack of resignation. Of what value are human things? They are nothing when seen in the perspective ofGod's power or in thatofthe bleakness ofdeath. All men areequal in bothperspectives. Richard isreadypiously to accept the vicissitudesoflife. Beingaking wasnothing but a care to him. As he wasconfident in being every.. thing, he professeshimselfresigned to being nothing. But, suddenly, he suspects that he has been betrayed by his friends, and now he is the man..God, Jesus, abandoned by all, surrounded only by Judases. And finally, when he learns that the man about to become king has executed his close associates, Richard collapses in despair: 5 let us sit on the ground And tell sad stories of the death of kings. (III, ii, 158-59) Thenoncemoreherespondsto thechidingsofCarlisleand remembers York's troops. But when he learns that York iswith Henry, he knows he is no longer king and abandons all hope. He had hoped in God's arms, the Welsh arms, and York's arms. He has no arms of his own, nor does he imagine trying to get them. Richard isnight, Henry day. A new sun has risen.3 As is evident, Richard's moods are mercurial. But what is most striking about them is that they move between two poles and never point to another alternative. He is either hopeful or despairing, ar.. rogant or humble, the glorious king or the poor man menaced by death. There is no middle ground. I'll give my jewels for a set of beads My gorgeous palace for a hermitage, My gay apparel for an almsman's gown, My figur'd goblets for a dish of wood, My sceptre for a palmer's walking staff, My subjects for a pair of carved saints, And my large kingdom for a little grave, A little little grave, an obscure grave. (III, iii, 155-62) The littlepieceoftimebetweenthe two eternities-Godand death that comprises human life has no status for Richard. Yet it isonly in this interval that political life isto be found, somewhat independent, and perhaps a bit forgetful, of God and death. The statesman must not be overwhelmedby the power andglory (not to mention thehigh moral demands) ofGod nor disheartenedby the shadow cast over his concerns by death. He must trust in his own efforts and take seriously the goals of life, liberty, and glory. He must respect this world. But just as Richard's reign is founded on the God of the Christians, he has aChristianview of the world. He iseither like God, or likeJesus, or like a monk or a hermit. He is never a political man. He is im.. prisoned in Julius Caesar's tower' but has no other connection with such men. Richardhasfrequentlybeencomparedto Hamlet, forbothpossess histrionicnatures. They are also alike in thatHamlettoo viewsthings in extremes, extremes which derive from a Christian's perspective. 6 3111, ii. ·V,i, 4. RICHARD II The Hamlet who is unwilling to kill the usurper while at prayer for fearthat his soulwill be savedand who thus loseshis chance to right things in the realm isakin to Richard. They are both actors of their partsratherthan being what they are, and they seethis worldthrough the optic of another world and thus transform it. And these two characteristics are probably effectsof a single cause.5 Richard, like Gaunt, is able to see only divine justice or brute force, God's pastorate or a tyrant's arbitrariness. A world in which menareresponsibleforthe defenseofjusticeandprovideforitsrewards and punishments is unknown to him. This is underlined in III.iv, which immediately follows the two scenes on which the foregoing reflections are based. Richard's sweet queen wanders in the Duke of York'sgardensand overhears the conversationofthe gardener and his assistant. They are humble men; but for that veryreason, in a world where everything high is conventional and artificial, Shakespeare makesthem speak the language of nature and reason. They, like the women in this play, help to supplywhat cannot be gotten from the high..born, convention..ridden men. These twoartisans compare their gardentothe state and explain whatshouldhavebeendonebyRichard and why his failing to do it has caused his downfall. They ascribe to an absence of art what others understand to be a result ofGod's will andmen'ssins.Onecannothelp beingremindedofPrinceXXV,where Machiavelliinterpretswhat mencallfortune orGod'sactioninpolitics as a lack of prudence or foresight. Floods, he says, injure men not because they are sinners but because they did not build dams. These two workers suggest that art, in cooperation with nature, can make statesaswellasgardensgrow.Thefoundingofpoliticalsciencerequires only a clear vision of things. But it is precisely that natural vision which is hard to achieve, for the prospect isclouded over by myths which must firstbe dispelled. The queen angrily reproaches the gar.. deners for committing the sin of Adam, for eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and thus bringing about a second Fall. The only defenseshecan contriveforher husband isto viewthisnotasnature's garden, given over to the control of rational men who can make it 5Mowbray isan interestingexample ofthe political man living in thiskind ofworld. He isascoundrel, capable ofallkindsofcrimes. Buthe isalsoabelievingChristian, praisedasadefender ofthe faith against the infidels. He isaChristian knight from thetimesoftheCrusades. Heisagreatsinnerandagreatrepenter. Hehasaconscience andconfesses.Althoughhetakespolitical thingsseriously,theyareforhimapparently low.HisChristianityaffectshim primarily, ifnot solely,insofarasitdebaseshisview of human life and politics. All the great things are somewhere else, beyond this sphere, but he isstillinvolved in politics. He istreacherous without anyofthe great justificationsone findsin great political men. And his treachery iscompromised by 7 hisconscience. (I, i, 83-150; IV, i, 91-100.) produce fruit for their sustenance, but as God's garden, the Garden ofEden, ruleddirectly byGod, producing what God willswithout the cooperation of man, whose inquiries into the mysteriouswaysof the rulerwouldbe asin. Asgardeners should not put their hands to God's garden, rational subjects should not question Richard's state. This vision makes political science impossibleand renders the attempt to establish it a sin, the sin ofdisobeying the ruler and ofattempting to replace him. Piety, not art, is the foundation of Richard's state, and the emancipation of art requires the overturning of that state. The case for Richard's rule is made by the finest or at least the most disinterested man among the principals, the BishopofCarlisle. (It goes without saying that Richard's touching eloquence does not make a case for his remaining as king. It only gives witness to the noble aspect of what makes him unfit to be a king.) Carlisle stands up before Henry and warns him not to depose the king. With his ". . . if you rear this house against this house,"? he accurately pro.. phesies the horrors ofthe Wars of the Roses.The overturning ofone monarch provides argument for the overturning of another. There mustbeestablished authorityand agreed..upon legitimacy. Hebelieves that only divine right can establish such legitimacy, and an attack on the king isan attackon God. Thedireconsequencesofsuchan attack Carlisle evidently attributes to God's wrath, although civilwarwould appear to follownaturally from the absence ofarecognizedsovereign. We wouldconclude that ifRichard's rule isafailure, thensomeother source of legitimacy must be sought for. The king in his nation, accordingtoCarlisle, isthe imageofGod inthe world.And everything that Richard isor isnot derives from that vision ofthe whole. God's rule of the whole is the source of Richard's rule in England, and the latter seems to be the necessary consequence of the former. If there is something wrong with the order in England, it is probably re.. lated to something wrong with the cosmic order on which it is modeled. This order isone in which prophecy takes the placeofforesight, andCarlisle'sprophecy isthe supplementtoGaunt'searlierprophecy.7 Gaunt treats England as a living being, its constitution, like that of abody, inseparable from it and unchangeable. Richard willbepurged like a disease. Gaunt's indignation does not lead to rebellion, and none seems possible. Country and constitution are identical; rulers are produced out of its womb; one isoneself a part of one's country and one must love it. Carlisle, on the other hand, sees England's 6IV, i, 115-50. 8 7II, i, 33-70. RICHARD II Christianity as something separable from it and knows the possibility of rebellion and change. Christianity is universal, and a nation can either participate in it or not. His loyalty isto Christianity. For him Christianity is represented by Richard. If England is to be purged of Richard, an elementofthatpurgationmust beachange inthe nation's relation to Christianity, most specificallyto God's representatives, the king and the priests. Carlisle forces us to correct Gaunt's vision. If England is to be free from the danger of Richards, there must be a change in the constitution and the spirit informing it. To render England unto itself the elements of the nation must be separated out and certain alien matter be removed. Only at the end of the history playsisthere a king, Henry VIII, who ishimself reallythe high priest and interpretsthe divine insuch awayastoserveEngland. Theeighth Henry istruly at home; Richardwasonly astranger; and this he learns when he looks at himselfin the mirror. A long and bloody path leads from Richard to Henry VIII, a path on which Englishmen learn that kingship isfounded on nobles and commoners aswellason God. This mixture is perilous but through it wisdom can at least occasionally peep without being sinful or causing civil war. Carlisle showsusboth the greatest dignity and the greatest weakness of the old order. God is supposed to rule; Richard actually rules. Without his faith that God protected him, he would have taken more care. III In the final act, York completes his comedy, Richard completes his tragedy, and Henrybegins his career asaguilt..ridden, world..weary man, insecure and plotted against, distrusting even his own son. Old York, the crumbling pillar of both the old and new order, tries madly to persuade himselfthat they are identical by accusing his son oftreason and demanding his death. His son wasloyalto Richard and thus isdisloyal to the usurper. Yorkabandons Richard and, aping a Roman citizen, demands his own son's death as a punishment for disloyalty. The Roman's deed inspires awe because it proves firmness of soul and is done for the unquestioned common good and in the name of the most ancient and unquestioned authority. But after what hasalreadytranspired, nothingYorkcould dowouldprovehisfirmness of soul. And Aumerle's adherence to Henry would imply the aban.. donment not only of his sovereign but his friend. It is ridiculous to suppose that Henry can command instinctive loyalty. That isexactly his problem. Attachment to him must be born of his wisdom, benef.. icence, and strength, for he isbeginning afreshwithout the sanctions 9 produce fruit for their sustenance, but as God's garden, the Garden ofEden, ruleddirectly byGod, producing what God willswithout the cooperation of man, whose inquiries into the mysteriouswaysof the rulerwouldbe asin. Asgardeners should not put their hands to God's garden, rational subjects should not question Richard's state. This vision makes political science impossibleand renders the attempt to establish it a sin, the sin ofdisobeying the ruler and ofattempting to replace him. Piety, not art, is the foundation of Richard's state, and the emancipation of art requires the overturning of that state. The case for Richard's rule is made by the finest or at least the most disinterested man among the principals, the BishopofCarlisle. (It goes without saying that Richard's touching eloquence does not make a case for his remaining as king. It only gives witness to the noble aspect of what makes him unfit to be a king.) Carlisle stands up before Henry and warns him not to depose the king. With his ". . . if you rear this house against this house,"? he accurately pro.. phesies the horrors ofthe Wars of the Roses.The overturning ofone monarch provides argument for the overturning of another. There mustbeestablished authorityand agreed..upon legitimacy. Hebelieves that only divine right can establish such legitimacy, and an attack on the king isan attackon God. Thedireconsequencesofsuchan attack Carlisle evidently attributes to God's wrath, although civilwarwould appear to follownaturally from the absence ofarecognizedsovereign. We wouldconclude that ifRichard's rule isafailure, thensomeother source of legitimacy must be sought for. The king in his nation, accordingtoCarlisle, isthe imageofGod inthe world.And everything that Richard isor isnot derives from that vision ofthe whole. God's rule of the whole is the source of Richard's rule in England, and the latter seems to be the necessary consequence of the former. If there is something wrong with the order in England, it is probably re.. lated to something wrong with the cosmic order on which it is modeled. This order isone in which prophecy takes the placeofforesight, andCarlisle'sprophecy isthe supplementtoGaunt'searlierprophecy.7 Gaunt treats England as a living being, its constitution, like that of abody, inseparable from it and unchangeable. Richard willbepurged like a disease. Gaunt's indignation does not lead to rebellion, and none seems possible. Country and constitution are identical; rulers are produced out of its womb; one isoneself a part of one's country and one must love it. Carlisle, on the other hand, sees England's 6IV, i, 115-50. 10 7II, i, 33-70.