Shakespeare’s Richard II can be seen as a lesson in Machiavellian politics, and Henry IV, Part 1 as a coming of age story. However, they also both explore issues involving masculine and feminine character traits, and how they were defined by society at the time. Henry Bolingbroke is largely defined by his positive masculine characteristics, which lead him to victory. Richard is portrayed as feminine, weak, and irresponsible ruler, which leads to his downfall. Richard is a man of words, full of indecision, and paralyzed by doubts and fears. Henry, on the other hand, is a masculine man of action. In the two plays Shakespeare examines the strengths and weaknesses of traditional medieval gender roles. Richard II focuses on the weaknesses of femininity, while Henry IV, Part 1 is about the excesses of masculinity. By the conclusion of Henry IV, Part 1, it is clear that both characters were too extreme, and a competent ruler requires a more balanced temperament, exemplified by the evolution of Prince Hal, who will become an ideal king.
Richard II starts with royal pomp and circumstance with Richard sitting on his throne and judging a disputing between noblemen Mowbray and Bolingbroke. Richard prefers talking over fighting, and urges the two to resolve their dispute diplomatically: “Let’s purge this choler without letting blood. / This we prescribe, though no physician: / Deep malice makes too deep incision; / Forget, forgive, conclude, and be agreed” (Richard II, 1.1.153-6). Richard initially decides to allow them to conduct a duel to settle their disagreement, which could be considered a “masculine” solution. He then arbitrarily changes his mind, which has historically been considered a “feminine” prerogative or weakness. Henry and Mowbray are formally ritually preparing for an elaborate and masculine battle, but Richard cuts it short, not only displaying his indecisiveness, but also denying them the opportunity to be masculine and honorable. He banishes them, which is a decision that will eventually lead to his dethronement and death.
Henry, however, wants nothing to do with words, he wants to fight, and begs Richard to allow him to defend his honor:
O God defend my soul from such deep sin!
Shall I seem crest-fallen in my father‟s sight?
Or with pale beggar-fear impeach my height
Before this out-dared dastard?
Ere my tongue Shall wound my honour with such feeble wrong,
Or sound so base a parle, my teeth shall tear
The slavish motive of recanting fear,
And spit it bleeding in his high disgrace
Where shame doth harbor, even in Mowbray‟s face
(Richard II, 1.1.187-95)
Along with his feminine predilection for dramatic gestures and melodrama, Richard is not a masculine king in any way. He ignores his male advisors, such as the wise Gaunt, and increasingly turns to his wife for advice, and even she believes he is not acting like a man, asking him why he is “Transform'd and weaken'd? hath Bolingbroke deposed Thine intellect? (Richard II, 5.1 2360-1). At the time, the world was a masculine place, and there was little respect for feminine character traits. Emotions were the domain of woman. In fact, by the end of play, Richard is portrayed as nearly insane and hysterical. The less power Richard has, the more he resorts to speech to get his message across and hold on to some power, threatening his opponents that “We‟ll make foul weather with despised tears/ Our sighs and they shall lodge the summer corn (Richard II, 3.3.160-2). He is trying to intimidate his usurpers with tears and sighs. His eloquence is in sharp contrast to the quiet, stoic and calculating Henry, who is busy gathering his allies, killing his opponents and solidifying his power. In Richard II, the masculine is triumphant.
In Henry IV, Part 1, the destructive and blinding power of masculinity is called into question. Shakespeare focuses on the evolution of Prince Hal from a boy to a man. In short, masculinity is honor and war, which can be both glorious but also destructive. If Richard was a weak ruler, Henry IV has used his masculinity to create nothing but conflict and hostility. He has so many problems he has insomnia, because ‘uneasy lies the head that wears the crown’ (Henry IV, 3.1 43). Henry IV never got around to his pilgrimage to atone for the death of Richard, he is involved in a power struggle with the Percy’s and Mortimer, Richard’s rightful heir. Henry’s own heir, Hal, is something of a juvenile delinquent, hanging around a fat Knight named Falstaff and hanging out in taverns of ill repute. Henry IV describes his son as a “young wanton and effeminate boy” (Henry IV, 5.3.10). To Henry IV, a king is not wild or feminine, but disciplined and masculine. However, young Henry turns out to be a Machiavellian and masculine character, just like his father.
However, in Henry IV, the antagonist is also a strikingly masculine figure. Hotspur is a courageous and smart leader of the rebels. Introduced as “A son who is the theme of honor's tongue/Among a grove the very straightest plant/Who is sweet Fortune's minion and her pride (Henry IV, 1.1.81-84) He is so impressive that Henry wishes he was his son, instead of Hal, who spends all his time gallivanting around town:
Of my young Harry. O that it could be proved
That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged
In cradle-clothes our children where they lay,
And call'd mine Percy, his Plantagenet!
Then would I have his Harry, and he mine
(Henry IV, 11.85-89).
Hotspur’s wife Kate, who is portrayed as an outspoken and strong woman, is upset that he spends too much time thinking about war and wants mores sex, asking him why she was “A banish'd woman from my Harry's bed?/ Why hast thou lost the fresh blood in thy cheeks;/ And given my treasures and my rights of thee/ To thick-eyed musing and cursed melancholy? (Henry IV, 2.3.1) In response, Hotspur reminds her that he no time for love, which was like playing with dolls. Additionally, she is only his wife, “yet a woman” and therefore not very trustworthy and should probably just be silent and submissive (Henry IV, 2.3.106-112). There is also an ironic suggestion that the overly masculine Hostspur is so obsessed with waging war, he is not satisfying his wife, which is his masculine duty. Everyone seems impressed by Hotspurs masculine persona, and he is also arrogant and proud, which turn out to be his major weakness. Shakespeare is clearly setting Hotspur up for a fall, creating a larger than life character, full of hubris, smart, but with none of the clever intelligence of young Henry. While some aspects of masculinity are important, the inflated, inflexible male ego seems to be portrayed as a weakness. Hotspur’s masculinity gets him killed, but young Henry treats his body with respect, because he died in a manly way.
In the same scene, Hal rejects Falstaff, because he had not fought honorably on the battlefield and claimed credit for Hotspur’s death. Falstaff is not masculine, he is a joker, not serious and therefore feminine. Aspects of Falstaff’s personality are representations of femininity. He, like Richard II, is all talk. He has a belly he calls a “womb” (Henry IV, 4.3,, 22). He is everything that Hotspur is not, and young Hal has to decide which version of masculinity is more attractive or useful, and being a pragmatist, he chooses a little of both. He is more accepting of the world, and can drink with commoners, like Falstaff, but also appreciates the strict and honorable military code of Hotspur. Hotspur is much too proud and elitist to drink with commoners. Shakespeare seems to be suggesting that to be a “macho” masculine man like Hotspur has both benefits and negative consequences. Hotspur was very masculine and very dead. Henry V was learning about the complications and risks associated with being overly masculine. Falstaff, for all of his lack of masculinity, would live to drink another day.
In both plays, the masculine and feminine help define each other, and there is a theme that both extremes have negative consequences. A king could not be erratic, indecisive, impulsive or irresponsible, which were traits associated with woman at the time. In clear Machiavellian terms, Richard was not strong, so he was overthrown. However, in Henry IV Shakespeare explored the excesses of masculinity. Hotspur is obsessed with masculine ideals that allow him to be manipulated, tricked and killed on the battlefield. Ultimately, he was unable to perform in bed with his wife, a sad condemnation of a man obsessed with himself.
Both plays offer a glimpse into the realities of Renaissance society and gender roles (McDonald). In both Henry IV and Richard II, woman play only small marginal roles, but they say a great deal about the ways men and woman defined themselves and thought about sexuality and identity. Richard II was weak and emotional, like a woman, and Henry IV and Hotspur were proud, arrogant and blinded or controlled by their masculinity. They were the strong and silent types. At the time, and even largely today, these are stereotypes. However, Shakespeare was also talking about inherent strengths of men and woman, and finding a balance of talk and action, love and peace, pride and modesty.
Ultimately, Shakespeare believed that a good king needed both sensitivity and strength. When Henry IV called Hal “effeminate” and criticized him for hanging around Falstaff, he was acknowledging that Hal was “different” than other noblemen. In Hal, Shakespeare was describing the evolution of a truly noble character, who had both masculine and feminine character traits, a man of action, and also a man of words. He is proud, but not too proud to drink in taverns. Unlike Richard and his father, Henry V will be an ideal ruler, with Richards intellectual capacity and his fathers strength and political savvy. Not an overly emotional wimp, or an arrogant macho man, he will be an enlightened king. While the plays are androcentric, focusing on male characters, they assert that both sexes have important and valuable characteristics that must be well balanced to contribute to create an ideal king.
Works Cited
McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. Boston: Bedford of St. Martin's, 1996. Print.
Shakespeare, William, Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print.
