Because both Richard II and Henry IV document and dramatize events in English history I found myself questioning whether the history that Shakespeare presents is progressive or cyclical. There is evidence to support both positions in each of the plays. The plot of Richard II is progressive in that the old is constantly being swapped for the new: Richard is the “old” king – he adheres strictly to the belief in divine right (which interestingly is in itself a kind of cycle) and thinks that his power is absolute, regardless of whether or not he is an effective ruler. Bolingbroke/Henry is the “new” king in that he understands that his power can depend on the will of the people (the “reverence” that he “throws away on slaves” in 1.4) as well as from inheritance; he is shrewd and manipulative (as can be seen from the way he tries to get Richard to give up his title so that his reign will seem more legitimate); and he is political in a way that Richard never was (Richard is kind of this traditional, monolithic entity while Henry brings in an opposition that never existed before, he brings in new subjectivities.) The characterizations, however, are cyclical: King Henry mimics King Richard in that he has someone who represents a political threat killed, and then banishes the man he had commit the murder. In Henry IV (so far) the plot is cyclical, with Northumberland and Hotspur trying to overthrow a King, just as Henry himself had done. The only (kind of) progressive thing I noticed was Henry’s desire to go to the “Holy Land” for war: it’s progressive in that he sees the war as an advancement, as something that will improve Christian life in general, as something that will move history forward.
The plays illustrate both positions, so I would have to say that Shakespeare doesn’t necessarily support either. I think that he presents history as something that is in constant flux, something that is a site of perpetual contention, with forces on a multiplicity of sides vying with one another to advance their own agendas. Most of the characters, (Richard vs. Henry, Henry vs. Hotspur, etc.) think that they are righting a wrong, that they are fighting for something that is better than what is present, but really they are too obtuse to see past their own objectives.
2 comments:
I think this post brings up a lot of good points. I would have thought of history as only cyclical when looking at these plays. In fact, it made me think of how many times I've heard "History repeats itself." The example you show of how the history is progressive really connects both plays.
I really enjoy how this post sets up the view that there are arguments for both cyclical and progressive history within the plays. What's especially convincing is how the two views are structured--as you said, the plot is progressive, but the characterizations are cyclical. I would even say that Henry's wish to begin a holy war is cyclical in that it is mimicking Richard's own war in Ireland--both saw the war as righteous and redeeming, as moving the nation and themselves forwards, but none of that really pans out for either of them.
Post a Comment