"All Crowns Are Hollow": Impending death's effects on Shakespearean monarchs
In 2019, Shakespeare Magazine from the UK published a short piece called, "All Crowns are Hollow: The scheming and backstabbing politicians of today would do well to ponder the fate of Shakespeare’s Kings."
[Image from The Hollow Crown, British TV series, via Wikipedia. Fair use.]
The piece includes the observation, "Very few of the kings in Shakespeare ever get to do any actual ‘kinging’. Instead they fight tooth and nail to get to the throne – often committing heinous crimes like murder in the process – and then they die."
While the title of this piece points to some usefulness for "scheming and backstabbing politicians of today," we might also consider how Shakespeare's plays reflect the playwright's (and his time's?) attitudes and skepticism about monarchs.
Many of Shakespeare's monarchs are shown in a bad light:
- Macbeth...
- Richard II is a poor king, deposed.
- Henry IV: The Biblical King David did not want to kill Saul because, though Saul had increasingly become a bad king, still, Saul was the Lord's anointed. So like him, Henry IV who usurped the throne felt guilty for having taken the throne, and for someone inspired by his words to have taken Richard's life. To add to his problems, he has a prodigal son for an heir.
- Hal (later Henry V), looking for a drinking buddy and surrogate father in Falstaff, shirking responsibilities.
- Henry VI was a weak king with poor judgment, manipulated by those around him.
- Edward IV: Shakespeare portrays Edward IV in a very bad light, certainly in part for how he sends ambassadors to France to arrange for him a bride, and then he tries to take Elizabeth Woodville as a lover, but like Henry VIII's Anne Boleyn, she refuses anything less than marriage.
Many of Shakespeare's historical and fictional monarchs or heirs improve when facing death:
- Hamlet becomes a better prince and perhaps more like a king than his uncle after his brush with death on his sea-voyage.
- Richard II becomes a better person and more regal after he loses the throne, and just before he dies, with help and inspiration from his queen who is on the way to a nunnery in France, and who he meets on the road to his imprisonment.
- Henry V becomes a better person for having known thieves, drinking men, and tricksters like Falstaff, and better when he listens to his men's fears before battle and gives them a pep-talk before going perhaps to their deaths against difficult odds. Paradoxically, one of the better kings in Shakespeare's plays may be this one, who spent his younger years as a prodigal son.
- Henry VI, like Richard, becomes a better person and more regal after he loses power and faces death.
- King Lear certainly takes a whole play to finally let go of his self-centeredness, come to terms with what monsters two of his daughters have become, and moments before he dies, to finally reconcile with his daughter Cordelia.
What does this mean for Shakespeare's view of monarchy? That too often, the best monarchs are those facing the threat of death? (Like the Misfit in Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find," we might say: "He'd have been a good king if there had been someone holding a gun on him every minute of his life"?)
Perhaps. But the history plays also seem to show that even a poor king who is able to preserve some semblance of justice and social order may be better than nothing, or than the free-for-all that may result in the vacuum left when a king is killed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: I’ve been examining instances of "beg" and "poor" in Shakespeare's plays chronologically. But I have deadlines and appointments that will delay the next installment, so this week is brief. I will return, poor and begging, next week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading! My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
The piece includes the observation, "Very few of the kings in Shakespeare ever get to do any actual ‘kinging’. Instead they fight tooth and nail to get to the throne – often committing heinous crimes like murder in the process – and then they die."
While the title of this piece points to some usefulness for "scheming and backstabbing politicians of today," we might also consider how Shakespeare's plays reflect the playwright's (and his time's?) attitudes and skepticism about monarchs.
Many of Shakespeare's monarchs are shown in a bad light:
- Macbeth...
- Richard II is a poor king, deposed.
- Henry IV: The Biblical King David did not want to kill Saul because, though Saul had increasingly become a bad king, still, Saul was the Lord's anointed. So like him, Henry IV who usurped the throne felt guilty for having taken the throne, and for someone inspired by his words to have taken Richard's life. To add to his problems, he has a prodigal son for an heir.
- Hal (later Henry V), looking for a drinking buddy and surrogate father in Falstaff, shirking responsibilities.
- Henry VI was a weak king with poor judgment, manipulated by those around him.
- Edward IV: Shakespeare portrays Edward IV in a very bad light, certainly in part for how he sends ambassadors to France to arrange for him a bride, and then he tries to take Elizabeth Woodville as a lover, but like Henry VIII's Anne Boleyn, she refuses anything less than marriage.
Many of Shakespeare's historical and fictional monarchs or heirs improve when facing death:
- Hamlet becomes a better prince and perhaps more like a king than his uncle after his brush with death on his sea-voyage.
- Richard II becomes a better person and more regal after he loses the throne, and just before he dies, with help and inspiration from his queen who is on the way to a nunnery in France, and who he meets on the road to his imprisonment.
- Henry V becomes a better person for having known thieves, drinking men, and tricksters like Falstaff, and better when he listens to his men's fears before battle and gives them a pep-talk before going perhaps to their deaths against difficult odds. Paradoxically, one of the better kings in Shakespeare's plays may be this one, who spent his younger years as a prodigal son.
- Henry VI, like Richard, becomes a better person and more regal after he loses power and faces death.
- King Lear certainly takes a whole play to finally let go of his self-centeredness, come to terms with what monsters two of his daughters have become, and moments before he dies, to finally reconcile with his daughter Cordelia.
What does this mean for Shakespeare's view of monarchy? That too often, the best monarchs are those facing the threat of death? (Like the Misfit in Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find," we might say: "He'd have been a good king if there had been someone holding a gun on him every minute of his life"?)
Perhaps. But the history plays also seem to show that even a poor king who is able to preserve some semblance of justice and social order may be better than nothing, or than the free-for-all that may result in the vacuum left when a king is killed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: I’ve been examining instances of "beg" and "poor" in Shakespeare's plays chronologically. But I have deadlines and appointments that will delay the next installment, so this week is brief. I will return, poor and begging, next week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading! My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
Comments
Post a Comment