Abstract

     One of the great topics of Elizabethan literature is that of the nature of the monarchy. In Christopher Marlowe's Edward II and William Shakespeare's Richard II, the issue of the justification of deposing a tyrant is discussed. This essay compares the manner in which Marlowe and Shakespeare portray the character of the king in their plays. Specifically, the techniques used to portray the monarchs as both tyrants and noble characters are compared. Although they are noble characters, both kings are deposed because they are tyrants. While there are minor differences in how the tyrants are portrayed, Marlowe and Shakespeare generally use similar techniques. The monarchs are shown as tyrants through the characters of their favourites, who corrupt the crown, and also their opposition figures who are better able to rule, but who have no legal basis to do so. The kings are portrayed as noble characters primarily through their polished, sophisticated language that sets them apart from those around them. The combination of the tyrannical and the noble in the character of the king in Edward II and Richard II shows the monarchs to be responsible for their own falls. The recognition of this fact by both rulers distinguishes these history plays as tragedies of character.

     In Christopher Marlowe's Edward II and William Shakespeare's Richard II, the overthrow of two tyrants is dramatized. The two monarchs eponymous in these plays, different and of different time periods, share many characteristics. Marlowe and Shakespeare generally portray the character of the monarch in the same way but there are some minor differences. These characters are involved in the rise and fall of men, a cycle of fate that replaces one man with another. This theme establishes a major component of each play: the opposition figure. Shakespeare and Marlowe differ somewhat in how they treat this cyclical nature of life and in their portrayal of the opposition figures of the play. Marlowe portrays the rise of Mortimer as a result of the decline of Edward II; as Mortimer wanes in turn, Edward III rises. Shakespeare does not treat his characters in such a cyclical manner, but shows the rise of Bolingbroke as being a result of his superior political skill, not necessarily because of fate.

     Edward II and Richard II act in similar ways, and both are overthrown, in part, because of their favourites, base characters in positions of honour and power. In addition, both are firm believers in the body-politic and the sanctity of ordained monarchs. Partly because of this belief, the two kings are overthrown. Both kings are also noble characters who retain their noble qualities even after they have lost their noble position. This aspect of the king's character is shown partly through language, for Richard II and Edward II are both more eloquent than those around them, although this is more true of Richard II than of Edward II. Finally, both plays are, while historical in nature, tragedies of character. Edward II and Richard II are responsible for their own downfalls, and ultimately come to realize that fact.

     The two kings are tyrants, and both playwrights illustrate that tyrants must be deposed, and can legally be defied. The inherent problem is how does one define a tyrant? A tyrant could be defined as an oppressive, unjust or cruel leader; a person exercising power or authority arbitrarily or cruelly. Shakespeare and Marlowe use Richard II and Edward II, characters they consider tyrants, to discuss the issue of the definition of a tyrant, and at what point, if any, such a monarch can be legally defied. Edward II is a tyrant because he turns over the country to his favourite, Piers de Gaveston, whose ends are personal power and wealth. Richard II is a tyrant because he is implicated in the death of his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, banishes Henry Bolingbroke, farms out the kingdom for taxation, and defies the law in his seizure of Bolingbroke's lands and possessions to finance his Irish campaign. Both tyrants fall because they lack the political sensitivity and knowledge that their opponents possess. But these opponents are not portrayed as heros. They have replaced a tyrant on the throne, but defied the law in doing so. They have deposed an ordained monarch, God's representative on earth. Even if the king is a tyrant, can one be justified in taking such drastic action as bearing arms against him? Bolingbroke is haunted by his actions and in Shakespeare's later plays Henry IV I, Henry IV II, and Henry V, both he and his son, the future Henry V, try to atone for his actions. Mortimer, the opposition figure in Edward II, does not feel guilt over the deposition of Edward II; he is much more concerned with his new-won power. The timeline of the play also deprives Mortimer of an opportunity to doubt his actions, for the rising Edward III soon has Mortimer killed for the murder of Edward II. Shakespeare and Marlowe both present a situation where a tyrant must be removed from the throne for the good of the country, but in doing so the chain of being is disrupted and the country is divided. For this reason, neither playwright presents the opposing forces in an entirely favourable light. Mortimer is hungry for power and becomes a tyrant himself, and while Bolingbroke possess a political astuteness that Richard II lacks, he is not as sophisticated or as sensitive a character.

     Vital to the creation of a tyrannical character in these plays is the character of the favourite. Both Edward II and Richard II are classified as tyrants, in part, because of their treatment of the favourites. Both monarchs hand over tremendous power to their undeserving, common flatterers. A major aspect of these characters is that they are commoners. In a highly structured class society, not only of the period when the plays were written, but also of those in which the plays are set, the presence of a commoner in the position of favourite at court was unacceptable. This theme of corruption of the throne through the base favourites is repeated throughout both plays.

     Gaveston is portrayed as a "base flatterer" and a corrupter of the king. Gaveston is also arrogant, and dares to "tyrannize upon the Church,"¹ with Edward II's support, by imprisoning the Bishop of Coventry, and then seizing his lands and revenues. Gaveston is given many titles, the least of which "may well suffice/For one of greater birth."² The nobles of the realm resent the rise of "base and obscure Gaveston,"³ for now those of noble birth are forced to flatter the king's "base minion." The nobles wish Gaveston removed because of his perverse influence over the king and country; "the ground is corrupted with [his] steps."⁴ The nobles openly swear to remove Gaveston from England, yet Edward II heaps more titles upon his favourite, and is willing to begin a civil war to defend Gaveston. Thus Edward II's blind support of Gaveston is a major factor in his overthrow. Isabella, Edward II's Queen, is angry over Edward II's rejection of her love in favour of that of Gaveston, and even she is forced to act against the king. Because of Gaveston's influence, Isabella and Edward II are driven apart, and the queen is eventually willing to allow Mortimer to "conclude against [Edward II] what [he] wilt / and [she herself] will willingly subscribe."⁵ Once Mortimer and Isabella have seized control of the country, the "proud corruptors of the light brain'd king"⁶ are quickly killed. Support of such a base, corrupt and power hungry individual such as Gaveston helps to define Edward II as a tyrant and aids in the justification of his overthrow.

     Sir John Bushy, Sir John Bagot and Sir Henry Greene are the favourites of Richard II. Richard II lavishes power and privilege upon these men, granting them the right to farm out the realm for taxation, and to collect war levies from the nobles. As in Edward II, the baseness of the flatterers and corruptors of the king is emphasized, but the baseness here is that of moral fibre rather than of social position. Shakespeare combines this with a contrast of the elevated nature of the king who wears a "blemished crown." The flatterers and favourites of the king bring corruption to the crown. In the meeting with Bolingbroke in Act Three, Richard II puns on his summons from Bolingbroke to go down to the base court of the castle, where "kings grow base."⁷ In this lower court Richard II will give up his monarchy, and therefore become nothing more than a commoner of low rank. While Richard II becomes base by physically coming down from the battlements, and by losing his kingship, he is, ironically already base in another sense. The favourites and flatterers of the court have already made the king grow base, for he has become morally blemished through his association with them. Richard II continues the diction pattern with the lines "Down, court! down king!"⁸, again altering the meanings of the words used. The first phrase refers to his descent to the base court of the castle, but also the fall of the royal court, as reinforced by the next phrase. The richest image of descent in this passage is that of Richard II as "glist'ring Phaeton" the boy struck down from Apollo's sun-chariot by Zeus to eliminate his threat to the earth by passing to close to it. Richard II has been struck down by Bolingbroke, as Phaeton was struck down by Zeus, to protect the earth, and in this case, England. In contrast to Edward II, the class of Richard II's "thousand flatterers" is aristocratic, and thus the references to baseness in Richard II are generally in the form of corruption, rather than lower social status. Although the portrayal of the favourites is slightly different in each play, the focus is the same: to portray the king as a tyrant, and to provide some justification his overthrow.

     Another important aspect of how Richard II and Edward II are portrayed as tyrants is the portrayal of the opposition figures in relation to the monarch. Both playwrights suggest that tyrants can be defied, but are reluctant to condone civil war. The conflict of legality versus the good of the country is the crux of plays. In the aspect of the opposition figures the two playwrights diverge somewhat in their portrayal. There are some similarities, in that the opposition figures of both plays want to protect the king from poor advisors who corrupt the crown. The rebels in both plays feel that they are acting for the good of the country. The opposition figures are, however, portrayed in different manners. Shakespeare presents an opposition group that is better able to rule than the tyrannical monarch, but that has no legal claim to act. The opposition figures of Edward II are anxious to remove Edward II from the throne, but rise to power more by fate than by their own political skills.

     Shakespeare, by having Richard II illegally seize Bolingbroke's land, presents the rebels in a sympathetic manner to develop the dilemma of what characters in the play are justified in acting as they do. Are the rebels justified in overthrowing a tyrant for the good of the country, or are they damned for taking arms against an ordained monarch? If the audience were not somewhat sympathetic to the rebel cause then the opposition figures would be seen merely as rebels who illegally fought the king to place an usurper on the throne. Bolingbroke is portrayed as having more political skill than Richard II, and easily wins the support of "both young and old"⁹ amongst both the nobles and the common people. Bolingbroke is able to marshal the support of the people because he returns to England to cleanse the country, and rid the king of his corrupting flatterers. Bolingbroke's role as a cleansing figure is illustrated early in the play when he accuses Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, of treason because he feels he must protect the crown. When he returns to England, Bolingbroke first wants Richard II to rule properly, and not be "basely led/By flatterers."¹⁰ Shakespeare contrasts the legality and illegality of Bolingbroke and Richard II to gain sympathy for the opposition forces. Bolingbroke justifies his return by saying he was banished Hereford, but "[comes] for Lancaster."¹¹ Bolingbroke has returned to England illegally to avenge the illegal seizure of his newly-inherited lands. The sympathy created by Shakespeare with the opposition figures is necessary to somewhat legitimize Bolingbroke's actions and his eventual ascension.

     Marlowe, on the other hand, shows a rise and fall of men based on fortune; as one man falls another rises to replace him. He thus does not emphasize to the same degree as Shakespeare does the issue of whether or not defiance of a tyrant can or cannot be condoned. His opposition figures, therefore, do not have to be portrayed in such a sympathetic manner. The audience is sympathetic to the cause of a queen who has been shunned by her husband, but Isabella and Mortimer will not be better for the country in the same way that Bolingbroke will. Marlowe, in fact, presents an opposition figure who is nearly as tyrannical as Edward II. Mortimer desires the throne for its power, not just to rid the realm of such parasites as Gaveston. Marlowe thus presents a play wherein the Wheel of Fortune plays a prominent role. The turning of the Wheel removes Edward II from the throne, and in turn sets up Mortimer. Next Mortimer falls and is replaced by the young Edward III. Thus, Marlowe does not require a similar division of loyalties between the illegal rebels and the tyrant as that created by Shakespeare. Marlowe and Shakespeare both use the opposition figures, though in slightly different ways, to pose the question : can one be justified in bearing arms against a tyrant?

     Though portrayed as tyrants, both Richard II and Edward II are noble characters who are born to lead and while they are tyrants who are willing to sacrifice their country for their own aims, and they lack the political astuteness of their opponents, they are both born rulers. They are ineffective rulers, however, unable to rule as they want, and it is here that they run into problems. Both have very clear ideas about what should be done in England, but their views are not shared by their subjects or their nobles. Richard II raises taxes to pay for his Irish wars, while Edward II would rather frolic with Gaveston than rule well. To rule as they wish, the two kings are willing to defy the laws of the kingdom and ignore the advice of others. Even after they are deposed, however, both kings retain the characteristics that made them noble characters, yet at the same time, tyrannical rulers.

     The nobility of the characters of the king is reinforced by the language that each of them uses, especially in the case of Richard II. Marlowe was writing in a transitional time, and one of the first to move beyond the episodic nature of the earlier history and morality plays. Shakespeare, writing later, used a much more poetic style, especially in the character of Richard II, and had fully abandoned both the episodic structure of the medieval play as well as the lengthy speeches of transitional plays such as Marlowe's Edward II.¹² Even though there is a difference in the style of the two playwrights, both monarchs use a style of language that is generally more sophisticated and polished than those around them. Edward II uses many classical allusions such as that to Phoebus,¹³ the sun-god, as well as "Pluto's bells," "Charon's shore," and "Cyclops' hammers." In addition, Edward II compares himself as a monarch to a lion, that will "unfold [its] paws"¹⁴ against its enemies. Such poetic, intellectual language and use of allusion is generally lacking in the speech of the other characters of the play, and thus language helps to illustrate the nobility of Edward II.

     Shakespeare better uses language to show the difference between Richard II and Bolingbroke, and also to show how Richard II loses none of his nobility of character after his deposition. Richard II has been aptly described as a poetic king, for throughout the play he possesses a poetic quality in his speech that those around him cannot equal. Although Bolingbroke has more political skill, he cannot match the elegance and wit of Richard II's speech. When Richard II resigns his crown he addresses Bolingbroke with the following speech:

     Here, cousin,
     On this side my hand, and on that side thine.
     Now is this golden crown like a deep well
     That owes two buckets, filling one another
     The emptier ever dancing in the air,
     The other down, unseen, and full of water.
     That bucket down and full of tears am I,
     Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.¹⁵

     To this polished image, the manifestation of the Wheel of Fortune as a well, Bolingbroke merely responds "I thought you had been willing to resign."¹⁶ Richard II frequently uses not only highly polished phrases, such as: "A king, woe's slave, shall kingly woe obey,"¹⁷ but also allusions and puns. A comparison, and pattern of allusion, repeated throughout the play is that of Richard II as a Christ-figure. Richard II frequently identified himself with Christ, for as an ordained monarch he is the Lord's minister on earth. "Did they [Bolingbroke and nobles] not sometime cry "All hail!" to me?/So Judas did to Christ. But he, in twelve,/Found truth in all but one; I in twelve thousand, none."¹⁸ Richard II refers to those who overthrow him as Judases, and those who force him to give up the crown and submit to the power of Bolingbroke as Pilates who have "delivered [him] to [his] sour cross."¹⁹ Throughout the play, Richard II, also identifies himself with the sun, especially as representing his divine position above all those in the realm, "[firing] the proud tops of the eastern pines/And [darting] his light through every guilty hole."²⁰ The language used by both the monarchs helps to distinguish them from those around them and reinforce the inherently noble nature of their characters.

     Another device that is used to emphasize the nobility of the king's character is their portrayal after the loss of their throne. Richard II and Edward II are men who are born to rule, and they feel that ordained monarchs, the state and the king are inseparable; what they have done is right by virtue of the fact that they are monarchs. Thus both kings lament that they have lost the power they once had, but continue to act as kings. Even after their imprisonment they continue to use the royal "we," recognizing their imprisonment and loss of temporal power, but not willing to admit that they state and the ruler can be so easily separated. When addressed as "lord" they reply that they rule only their own sorrows. They often tell their opponents that they cannot relieve them of the burden of their sorrows, for "the griefs of private men are soon allay'd/But not [those] of kings."²¹

     Both playwrights also use the actions of a particular character late in the play to reinforce the king's nobility of character and to emphasize the ambiguity of justification for his overthrow. In Edward II, Marlowe has the Earl of Kent, Edward II's brother, repent for what he has done in the last part of the play. Realizing that his role in the overthrow of his brother was wrong, he tries to rescue Edward II, but is unsuccessful. By introducing a change of heart in one of the prominent characters of the play, Marlowe again raises doubt about the acceptability of what has transpired.

     Shakespeare uses the character of the Bishop of Carlisle in a similar fashion. The Bishop asks Bolingbroke and the new court : "What subject can give sentence on his king?/And who sits here that is not Richard's subject?"²² The Bishop of Carlisle reminds the audience, and Bolingbroke, of his illegal rise to power, and again reinforces the doubt about the justification of Bolingbroke's actions. Richard II also continues to make polished, witty statements such as this address to Bolingbroke:

     Fair cousin! I am greater than a king;
     For when I was a king, my flatterers
     Were then but subjects; being now a subject,
     I have a king here to my flatterer.
     Being so great, I have no need to beg.²³

     Richard II's ability to make such clever statements in the face of the loss of his power further illustrates his nobility of character, and contrasts his sophistication with the political skill of Bolingbroke. The monarchs are portrayed in a sympathetic manner towards the end of the plays in order to reinforce the contrast between tyrant and rebel. Although the country is, in both plays, now ruled by one more able, the nobility of the kings' characters is reinforced to maintain the doubt in the minds of the audience.

     While both plays are classified as history plays, they involved the tragedies of character of the two monarchs. The combination of the noble and the tyrannical in the character of both kings eventually leads to their fall. Because they are born leaders, and have a definite idea of how they wish to rule, they cross the boundaries of their power, imposing their wills on their subjects, regardless of the law. Within them, Edward II and Richard II possess the seeds of their own destruction, and this too serves to make them both supported and opposed by the audience. The playwrights use not only the character and actions of the kings, but also those of the opposition figures and favourites to show the tragedy of the fall of these monarchs. Marlowe and Shakespeare wrote these plays to discuss the legality of taking up arms against an ordained monarch if that monarch is a tyrant. There was no express need for historical figures of Edward II and Richard II to be used, but these monarchs were chosen to reflect the uncertainty, and tragedy, of rebellion.

     Neither monarch is willing to accept the facility with which an ordained monarch has been removed from the throne by violent and illegal means, although they ultimately recognize their catharsis. Part of the downfall of each is the unwillingness to recognize the power of the opposing forces. In ruling as an absolute monarch, these two men underestimate their enemies, feeling secure in the knowledge that "the Power that made [them] king/Hath power to keep [them] king in spite of all."²⁴ In fact, when Richard II is murdered he tells his murderers that they will burn in hell for the crime that they have committed, for God will revenge the murder of the rightful king. As part of their recognition of their own role in their downfalls, both monarchs make observations about the fate of those who have usurped them. Richard II sees that if an ordained monarch has been overthrown once, then there is nothing barring the overthrow of an usurper. As illustrated in later plays, Henry Bolingbroke does indeed face rebellions during his rule. Edward II recognizes not only his own flaws, but also those of Mortimer, who now controls England. When told that it is for the good of England that Mortimer rules, Edward II sees that it is for the good of Mortimer that Mortimer rules. Ironically, while on the throne Richard II and Edward II are unable to recognize the traits that make them tyrants, but they easily discern these characteristics in those who succeed them, while the populace in general does not.

     Both monarchs fall because they do not accept the advice of the good advisors around them, but instead listen to their favourites. They seem to enjoy the trappings and power of kingship but are unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with the position. Neither monarch is willing to act in accordance with the kingdom's or the nobles' best interests, but have their own ideas in mind. They are willing to take whatever action necessary to achieve their own goals but are unable to see how unpopular their policies are. Marlowe and Shakespeare effectively discuss the legality of rebellion in their two plays through their portrayals of the kings. They use the attitudes and actions of the monarchs, their favourites and a sympathetic portrayal of the opposition figures to portray the king as a tyrant. In contrast, the playwrights use polished, sophisticated language, and compassionate actions to show the noble character of the king. Finally, the combination of the tyrannical and the noble in both characters shows how Edward II and Richard II are tragedies of character, for the kings, through their own actions, bring about their downfalls, and ultimately recognize that fact. Thus, Marlowe and Shakespeare, using different kings, but through similar techniques address the legality of defying a tyrant, even when he is an ordained monarch.

Endnotes

1 Christopher Marlowe, Complete Plays and Poems : Edward II, ed. E.D. Pendry, The Everyman Library (London: Orion Publishing Group, 1976), I, ii, l. 3.
2 Ibid., I, i, l. 157-158.
3 Ibid., I, i, l. 100.
4 Ibid., I, ii, l. 5.
5 Ibid., V, ii, l. 19-20.
6 Ibid., V, ii, l. 2.
7 William Shakespeare, Richard II, ed. Peter Ure, The Arden Shakespeare (New York: Routledge Ltd., 1961), III, iii, l. 180.
8 Ibid., III, iii, l. 182.
9 Ibid., III, ii, l. 119.
10 Ibid., II, i, l. 241-242.
11 Ibid., II, iii, l.113.
12 Irving Ribner, The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare, Methuen & Company (London : Methuem & Co Ltd., 1965), p. 132.
13 Christopher Marlowe, Complete Plays and Poems : Edward II, ed. E.D. Pendry, The Everyman Library (London: Orion Publishing Group, 1976), IV, iii, l. 3.
14 Ibid., II, ii, l. 203.
15 William Shakespeare, Richard II, ed. Peter Ure, The Arden Shakespeare (New York: Routledge Ltd., 1961), IV, i, l. 182-189.
16 Ibid., IV, i, l. 190.
17 Ibid., III, ii, l. 210.
18 Ibid., IV, i, l. 169-171.
19 Ibid., IV, i, l. 241.
20 Ibid., III, ii, l. 42-43.
21 Christopher Marlowe, Complete Plays and Poems : Edward II, ed. E.D. Pendry, The Everyman Library (London: Orion Publishing Group, 1976), V, i, l. 10.
22 William Shakespeare, Richard II, ed. Peter Ure, The Arden Shakespeare (New York: Routledge Ltd., 1961), IV, i, l. 121-122.
23 Ibid., IV, i, l. 304-309.
24 Ibid., III, ii, l. 27-28.

Bibliography

Marlowe, Christopher. Complete Plays and Poems : Edward II. Ed. E.D. Pendry, The Everyman Library. London : Orion Publishing Group, 1976.

Ribner, Irving. The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare. Methuen &Company. London : Methuen & Co Ltd., 1965.

Shakespeare, William. Richard II. Ed. Peter Ure, The Arden Shakespeare. New York : Routledge Ltd., 1961.