Monarchic Authority In The Elizabethan Era

Antunez 1
Bianca Antunez
ENL 117
Prof. Bloom/ TA: Leanna
9 Mar 2017
Comments, please! J
Deleted Scenes: Richard II and the Deposition
Two conflicting theories of monarchic authority arose during the Elizabethan Era, both finding their way into various works of literature, including William Shakespeare’s Richard II, denoting what gave a monarch the right to rule or to claim the throne. The first, divine right, describes that God directly instills the monarch with power to carry out the will of God. This God-given right to rule meant that to question or rebel against the actions of the monarch would question God’s judgment, both of which found fault within Elizabethan society. In contrast, the contract theory of monarchic authority illustrates
that the monarch receives his or her power from the people; therefore, if the king commands something not in the best interest of the people, they retain the right to rebel (Bloom, Richard II, Lecture 2). These two political theories resonate strongly within Richard II, as it calls into question Richard’s claim to the throne. In the beginning of the play, Richard commands full authority over his kingdom but inadvertently falls out of favor with the people due to his own fatal flaws and misguided judgments, ultimately leading to his tragic downfall and death. Act IV, Scene 1 most clearly depicts these ideas of monarchic authority and Richard as a tragic hero through the deposition scene, which some editions of the play may omit. The scene mostly describes the formal, public display of Richard passing the crown (and therefore, the monarchy) to Henry. Originally, Richard II did not include the deposition scene until Shakespeare’s First Quarto, due to censorship in England at the time; the crown may have believed that the play might incite rebellion or further support the contract theory (Bloom, Richard II, Lecture 2). However, the inclusion of the deposition scene in Richard II supports the divine right theory of monarchic authority by illustrating Richard’s royal persona and his rightful claim to the throne, in contrast to Henry's forceful deposition of Richard to gain power. Moreover, the scene depicts Richard as a tragic hero who succumbs to Henry’s treason and villainy in his heart-rending death.
The God-given right to rule, also called divine right, explained that the monarch’s power derived directly from God, not the people. The deposition scene endorses the idea of divine right by showing how Richard finds himself interconnected with the monarch and unable to so easily give it up due to that connection. When Henry demands Richard hand over the crown, Richard responds by saying, “Ay, no; no, ay,” (IV.1.201). This line utilizes antimetabole, which describes the repetition of words in adjacent clauses or phrases but in a transposed order. While the line conforms to iambic pentameter, the disruption of the normal flow of the verse through antimetabole shifts emphasis from the actual deposition itself to Richard’s mindset and his state of being. The use of this literary device truly illustrates Richard’s indecisiveness to hand over the crown as he contemplates between yes and no. Richard realizes that his power to rule was given to him by God; to Richard, ceding the throne feels impossible because he can say he will hand over the throne, but he cannot just reverse God’s appointment of Richard as king. This internal struggle truly comes to light through the antimetabolic form of the line and further highlights his reluctance to give up his crown because of his concrete connection to it.
In opposition to divine right, the social contract theory describes a belief where people give power to the monarch with the agreement that the monarch must act in accordance with the people’s well being.
In Richard II, some may interpret the deposition scene as support for the contract theory by saying that Richard wasted his rule and should have appealed more to the people. In a conversation between some men in Act III, Scene 4, a gardener says, “Bolingbroke/ Hath seized the wasteful king, O, what pity is it? / That he has not so trimmed and dressed his land/ as we this garden!” (III.4.54-57). This describes Richard as a failure of the “keeper of the land” and a “wasteful king” instead of someone who cares for his people like a gardener cares for his garden. He failed his people, and by the contract theory, they can rebel because of it. To counter this argument, however, would show that this is merely a gardener sinning against the throne and against God. In terms of divine right, Richard does not rule for the people, God rules through him for God’s higher purpose; nothing can take that away. As described earlier in the play by Richard, “Not all the water in the rough rude sea/ can wash the balm from an anointed king,” (III.2.54-55). This line, dictated by Richard (which means it came straight from God and by God’s own will) refutes the gardener’s arguments that a king can merely be seized and deposed and that the king serves the people. Richard explains that nothing (not
even “all the water” in the sea) could undo the anointing of a man as king. Because of divine right, the people must accept that God anointed this man or woman as monarch to carry out His will on earth, whom the people cannot merely replace without any repercussions. This further supports the idea that because God appoints the monarch, the monarch works for God, not the people; therefore, Richard cannot be a “wasteful king” if he simply carries out the will of God. The idea of divine right as cause for monarchic authority is further reinforced by his royal persona and how the people interpreted that.
Further evidence suggests that the people also believed that Richard’s power came directly from God. For example, when John of Gaunt talks of Richard, he says, “God’s is the quarrel; for God’s substitute, / His deputy anointed in his sight, /…for I may never lift/ An angry arm against his minster,” (I.2.37-38, 41-42). Gaunt realizes that Richard’s power comes directly from God; so, to go against the king would also go against God. He explains that the king acts as God’s surrogate on earth, and that he would never go against the king because of that. John of Gaunt realizes Richard’s status and that the king’s royalty means God appointed him directly, further upholding the theory of divine right in Richard II. This theory gains more support when Richard bring attention to his royal persona.
Richard’s regal identity presents additional evidence for divine right through the deposition scene. Richard fully comprehends the formalities of the throne, and even through his deposition, he undergoes the appropriate customs and rituals for doing such act of treason. To Henry, Richard says, “Give me the crown. Here, cousin, seize the crown. / Here, cousin, / On this side my hand, and on that side thine,”(IV.1.181-186). A number of literary techniques and devices, deviation in meter and repetition, for example, add to the meaning of this line—to stress the particular regal presence Richard exudes during this scene, which supports Richard as a tragic hero appointed by God through divine right. In line 182, “Here cousin” disrupts the pentameter form to emphasize the actions of Richard and to call attention to the kingly mannerisms of Richard. God chose him to rule and His choice can be further supported by Richard’s royal composure and persona. While he may not always find favor with the people, Richard fulfills his duty as God’s subject in carrying out His greater plan, supporting the theory of divine right monarchic authority. Richard continues by directing Henry what to do next to ceremonially transfer the crown, showing that he proves the more competent ruler in terms of these royal traditions and customs; Richard truly knows how to play the role of a king in court. Additionally, this helps shape the mold of a tragic hero that Richard fits within the play.
The tragic hero follows a set model with prescribed criteria, all of which Richard exemplifies at one point in the play.
A tragic hero must have a fatal flaw or error in judgment (usually offset by justice or revenge), bad fortune because of the flaw or error, and an over-exaggerated fate, such as Richard’s tragic death. Richard’s misruling and failing as a king underlines his role as a tragic hero in the play, until he encounter misfortune, which then results in his deposition and death. The deposition scene plays a significant role in the idea of Richard as a tragic hero because it paints Richard as a victim of an unlawful fate as he says, “Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands, / Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates…water cannot wash away your sin,” (IV.1.239-240, 242). In these lines, Richards likens himself to Christ and those who rebelled against him to Pilate. In doing so, Richard relates back to divine right by showing that he and God are connected; he can say he is like God without it being blasphemy or a sin or anything because he himself was appointed by God. Moreover, he explains that by rebelling against the monarch, they sin against God since the king acts as a stand-in for God. Relating himself to Christ and his enemies to Pilate immediately portrays Richard as a tragic hero who upholds his duties but still meets a tragic fate. In the case of Richard, his fate stems from his errors in judgment as a human, such as ordering the death of Duke of
Gloucester. While this may seem like an awful thing in the eyes of the people, most still never question it because God gave Richard his right to rule.
Overall, the deposition scene in Shakespeare’s Richard II proves vital in supporting a number of central, key themes throughout the play; moreover, there would a far less substantial debate on the topics. Without it, the play’s perspective on monarchic authority based on divine right could drastically change in favor of the social contract theory. Without it, Richard may appear like an awful king who failed his people and was rightfully dethroned. Without the inclusion of the deposition scene, the meaning behind Richard II loses much of its content and weight as a play.