7/23/2019 519341

1/23

Swearing and Forswearing in Shakespeare's Histories: The Playwright as Contra-MachiavelAuthor(s): Tom McAlindonReviewed work(s):Source: The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 51, No. 202 (May, 2000), pp. 208-229Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/519341.Accessed: 23/05/2012 23:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of

English Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/519341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/519341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

7/23/2019 519341

2/23

SWEARING

AND

FORSWEARING

IN

SHAKESPEARE'S HISTORIES

THE PLAYWRIGHT AS CONTRA-MACHIAVEL

BY

TOM McALINDON

O,

where

is

faith?

0,

where

is

loyalty?

(2 Henry VI, V. i. 164)1

Shakespeare's

obsession

with

swearing

and

forswearing

is

most

conspicuous

in

his

English

histories.

It was

prompted

by

his

chronicle

sources,

where an

epidemic

of

Yorkist-Lancastrian

perjury

reflects a

distintegrating

social order.

But

Shakespeare

greatly emphasized

this

aspect

of

his

sources,

partly

because

it

crystallized

much of the malaise and

anguish

of

his

own

century;

and

partly

too

because it focused attention

on Machiavelli's notorious defence of

expedient

perfidy.

The Succession and

Supremacy

oaths,

and the

inquisitional

ex

officio

oath,

with their ruthless

penalties

for

non-compliance,

sought

to

impose

unity

on a divided nation, but had the effects of debasing the oath, generating

cynicism

about

all claims

to

truth, faith,

and

honour,

and

producing

what one

Elizabethan

called

'a Machiavellian State

and Governance'.

These

effects are

dramatized

with

growing sophistication

from

Henry

VI

through

to Richard

II

and

Henry

IV,

their connection with the

religio-political history

of Tudor

England being foregrounded

in

King John. Shakespeare

shows that

expedient

treachery

never

works

to

the benefit of

prince

or

commonwealth,

but

only

makes a bad

situation

worse,

producing

bitterness,

instability,

and violence.

And

in his

contrasting

delineation

of

Henry

IV,

who 'broke oath on

oath',

and

of

Hal,

the 'Prince

. . .

who never

promithes

but

he means

to

pay',

he

endorses the

humanists'

conception

of

truth as

the

basis of

justice

and

social order and

a

prerequisite

for effective

leadership.

Shakespeare's

plays

exhibit an interest

in

swearing

and

forswearing

which

at

times

seems almost

obsessive;2

nothing comparable

to

it can

be found

in

any

other

dramatist

of

the

period.

Although

it

extends

throughout

the whole

canon,

it

is most

conspicuous

in his

histories,

where

it

also

begins.

It

is

these

plays

that

I want

to consider

here;

and since

I

believe the

issue

of

1 References throughoutare to TheCompleteWorks, d. S. Wells and G. Taylor (Oxford, 1988).

2 For

previous

discussions,

see

F. L.

Kelly,

'Oaths

in

Shakespeare's Henry

VI

Plays',

Shake-

speare

Quarterly,

24

(1973),

357-71;

F. A.

Shirley, Swearing

and

Perjury

in

Shakespeare'sPlays

(London,

1979); J.

A.

Barish,

'King

John

and Oath

Breach',

in B. Fabian

and K. von Rosado

(edd.),

in

Shakespeare:

Text,

Language,

and Criticism

Hildesheim,

Zurich,

and

New

York, 1987),

1-18;

J.

D.

Canfield,

Wordas Bond

in

English

Literature

rom

the Middle

Ages

to

the

Restoration

(Philadelphia,

Pa., 1989);

E.

Glazov-Corrigan,

'The New Function of

Language

in

Shakespeare's

Pericles',

ShakespeareSurvey,

43

(1991),

131-40.

TheReview

f

English

tudies,

New

Series,

Vol.

51,

No. 202

(2000)

?

OxfordUniversityPress2000

7/23/2019 519341

3/23

SWEARING

AND

FORSWEARING IN SHAKESPEARE'S

HISTORIES

truth

and

promise

to

be

a

source

of

major

misunderstanding

in the inter-

pretation

of

Henry

IV,

my primary

emphasis

will

be on

this,

the

greatest

of

the histories.

One

obvious reason

for

Shakespeare's exceptional

interest in

swearing

and

forswearing

is his

overriding

concern with the

power

and the

significance

of

language

itself: the oath or vow-the word as

bond-is

language

in

its most

urgent

and solemn

form,

a

symbol

almost of human

connectedness

and

interdependence.

A

cognate

reason

is his

preoccupation

with

constancy

and

inconstancy,

the

fragile

continuity

and

coherence

of the

self

as

exhibited

in the

relationship

between word and deed. But

there

are

also a

number of historical

reasons,

relating

to

socio-political

theory

and

practice.

These reflect the extent

to which

Shakespearespoke

from his own

culture and

its

shaping past,

and in

the

context of the

history plays

they

deserve

special

attention.

From

earliest times

the oath had served to secure and

sanctify

the vertical

bonds

uniting

ruler

and

subject

and the horizontal bonds

uniting

citizens

within a

city

or state.3 In

Anglo-Saxon England,

the

law and

the

community

were founded

on

the

conception

of

the

oath-worthy

man,

the individual whose

sworn word constituted

proof.

Alfred the Great wrote at

the

head of his

Laws,

'In

the

first

place,

we

enjoin you,

as a matter of

supreme

importance,

that

every

man shall abidecarefully by his oath and pledge'. The swearingof fealty to the

king

was central to

English political practice

in the

Anglo-Saxon period

and

was

subsequently

adopted by

the Norman

kings

as their

most effective

counter

to the oath and

act of

homage binding

vassals

and

sub-vassals.4

Thus the whole

feudal

system

in

England

from

the

time

of

the

Conqueror

was held

together by

the

personal

bond,

the

solemnly

sworn

contractual

relationship

of mutual

defence

and

support

binding

vassal,

lord,

and

king.5

The

decay

of the feudal

system

and

the

rise

of the

modern,

centralized state

did

not

diminish

the

importance

of the oath. It was sustained

by

chivalry,

the

code of ethics and manners which feudalism

begot

and which

enjoyed

a notable

renaissance

in the sixteenth

century. Embodying

the ideals

of the

aristocracy

and the

gentry,

the chivalric code identified honour

and

nobility

with

both

truth

(fidelity

and

truthfulness)

and valour.6 Indeed

in

the sixteenth

century

the words 'truth' and 'honour'

were so

frequently

conjoined

as to

seem almost

synonymous

terms.

The word of a

gentleman

or soldier was held

to be

sacred,

so that

'to

give

the lie'

to

any

man of honour-to accuse

him of untruth-was

regarded

as the

supreme

insult,

an attack

on

personal integrity

and

good

name

3 See P. Prodi, II Sacramento del Potere: II giuramentopolitico nella storia costitutionale

dell'Occidente

Bologna,

1992).

4 The

Laws

of

the

Earliest

EnglishKings,

ed. and

trans.

F. L. A.

Henborough

(Cambridge,

1922),

63;

A.

J. Joliffe,

The Constitutional

History

ofMedieval

England,

3rd edn.

(London,

1954),

8-9,

106.

5 C.

Petit-Dutaillis,

The

Feudal

Monarchy

n France

and

Englandfrom

the Tenth

to

the Thirteenth

Centuries

London, 1936),

221.

6

Sir

John

Ferne,

The Blazon

of

Gentrie

1586),

79, 116;

Sir William

Segar,

Of

Honour,

Militarie

and Ciuil

(1602), 60;

S.

Painter,

French

Chivalry:

Chivalric Ideas

and

Practices

in Mediaeval

France

(Ithaca, NY, 1940),

28-30. See also

1

Henry

VI,

II.

iv. 1-64.

209

7/23/2019 519341

4/23

TOM MCALINDON

so

grievous

as

to warrant homicidal retaliation.7

Correspondingly

(as

the

moralists

and satirists

insisted),

casual

swearing

became in the sixteenth

century a tiresomely familiarhabit with all those who wished to assert their

knightly

or

gentlemanly

status.8

II

But more

important

for

the sixteenth

century

than

the residual ideals and

sentiments

of

chivalry

was

the

monopolization

of

the

oath

by

the

sovereign

state

in

the

unsteady

transition

from

feudalism

to a

centralized monarchical

authority,9

a

process

precipitated

in

England by Henry

VIII's breach with

Rome. Because of the

political

instability

which

followed from

the

Reforma-

tion,

the use

of

the oath as

a

means

of

testing

and

ensuring

the

loyalty

of

subjects

(especially

those

holding government

office),

and of

weeding

out

dissidence

and

nonconformity,

became

an

outstanding

feature of

the Tudor-

Jacobean

period;

there was a

corresponding

proliferation

of

writings dealing

wholly

or in

part

with the

subject

of

oaths,

perjury,

and

equivocation.10

And

because

it

was an

age

of

deeply

divided

loyalties,

oaths were for

many

a

painfully problematic

issue. The

problem began quite specifically

with

Henry's divorce and his concomitant objection to a pan-European feudal

order which

made

him a vassal of the

Pope

and allowed the

Pope

to relieve

subjects

of their oath of

fealty

to the

king.

Henry's

Succession Act of

1534

imposed

an

oath,

to be taken

by

all

subjects,

accepting

the

legitimacy

of his

divorce and

implicitly

rejecting

the

Pope's authority;

refusal to

take this oath

was

deemed

an

act of

high

treason,

punishable by

death. In

addition,

the Act

of

Supremacy

(1534) declaring

Henry

to be 'the

only

head of the Church

of

England'

imposed

an

oath which

specifically

required renouncing

the

jurisdic-

tion

of

Rome

and all oaths sworn thereto. This oath had

to be sworn

by

the

7 Philbert de

Vienne,

The

Philosopherof

the

Court,

trans.

G. North

(1575),

49. See also

Ferne,

The Blazon

of

Gentrie,

77k,

and Vincent

Saviolo,

VincentSaviolo

His

Practice,

sig. piv

ff.,

where

duelling

is

justified

against

the lie.

Said Addison

in 1711: 'The

great

Violation of the

Point

of

Honour from

Man to

Man,

is

giving

the

Lye' (cited

in

OED,

under

Lie,

2

('To

give

the

lie').

8 Sir Thomas

Elyot,

The

Boke named he

Governour,

d. S. E.

Lehmberg

(London,

1962), 180-1;

Stefano

Guazzo,

The

Civile

Conversation,

rans. G. Pettie and B.

Young,

ed. E.

Sullivan,

2

vols.

(London, 1925),

i.

59-60;

Thomas

Becon,

'The

Invective

Against Swearing',

in

Early Works,

ed.

J.

Ayre (Cambridge,

1843),

357-62.

See

also

J.

Sharman,

A

Casual

History of Swearing

(1884;

New

York, 1968), 105,

115, 124,

and

Shirley, Swearing

and

Perjury

n

Shakespeare's

lays,

chs.

1

and

2.

9 See Prodi,II Sacramentodel Potere, 227-82.

10 C. H.

Robbins,

'Selden's Pills: State

Oaths in

England, 1558-1714',

Huntington

Library

Quarterly,

35

(1971-2),

303-5;

J.

Guy,

'The

Elizabethan Establishment and

the

Ecclesiastical

Polity',

in id.

(ed.),

The

Reign

of

Elizabeth

I:

Court

and Culture

(Cambridge,

1995),

138-9;

E.

Rose,

Cases

of

Conscience:

Alternatives

Open

to

Recusantsand

Puritans under

Elizabeth

I and

James

I

(Cambridge, 1975), 89-95;

P.

Holmes,

Resistance

and

Compromise:

The Political

Thought

of

the.

Elizabethan Catholics

(Cambridge, 1982),

109,

241 n. 3. On

the enforcement of

the

Succession and

Supremacy

oaths,

see G.

Elton,

The

Enforcement f

the

Reformation

n

the

Age

of

Thomas

Cromwell

(Cambridge,

1972),

223-30. He

remarks that 'never before had

a

spiritual

instrument

of commitment been

used as a

political

test'.

210

7/23/2019 519341

5/23

SWEARING

AND

FORSWEARING

IN

SHAKESPEARE'S

HISTORIES

whole

adult

population.

At

first the

penalty

for

refusing

the

oath

was life

imprisonment,

but later statutes

made refusal

an act

of

high

treason.

Although

both acts were repealed by Mary Tudor, Elizabeth restored the Supremacy

Act

(1559).

After 1563

the

penalty

for

first refusal of its oath was loss of all

property

and life

imprisonment,

and for a

second refusal death as a traitor.

With the

exception

of non-ecclesiastical

persons

above the

rank

of

baron,

the

oath

had

to be taken

by everyone holding

public

office of

any

kind,

by

those

proceeding

to a

university degree,

and

by

public

and

private

teachers

of

children."l

Moreover,

in

its

growing

determination to

stamp

out all forms of

religious

dissent,

on the

assumption

that

political power

could

only

be ensured

by

religious

unity,

the

government

came to

rely

on the

practice

of

interrogating

the

religiously

suspect

under oath.

In

such

circumstances,

answering

questions

such as

'Do

you

attend

church?',

or 'Is

so-and-so a Catholic

priest?'might

lead

to

penalties

for

oneself or others

ranging

from ruinous

fines to the

traitor's

death

by

disembowelling.

Unless

one

accepted

the

argument

that

this mode of

questioning

was so

unjust

as to warrant

equivocation

or

mental

reservation,

answering

truthfully

entailed

perjury,

a sin which both the

Catholic and the

reformed Church held to

be

deserving

of the

most severe

punishments

in time

and eternity. The most famoustype of interrogationunder oath was that which

involved

the

so-called ex

officio

oath. After

1583,

Puritan dissenters

were

compulsorily

subjected

to this

oath

by

the

ecclesiastical Court

of

High

Commission

in an effort to ensure

their full

conformity

to the

religious

settlement. The ex

officio

oath

was

fiercely

condemned

by

the Puritans and

their

many

allies

among

the

secular

lawyers,

who claimed that

it

violated the

whole

spirit

of

the

common

law

by

requiring

people

to incriminate them-

selves.12Historians of

the

period

seldom fail to

record

this

controversy

or to

deal

sympathetically

with

the

indignation

it

inspired

among

Elizabeth's

Protestant subjects. But they tend not to observe that Catholics were

commonly

interrogated

by government

officers in the same manner and

usually

with far

more serious

consequences.13

The

Catholic

rebellion of 1569 and the

papal

bull of

1570

did

much

to

keep

the oath

at

the

centre

of

religious

and

political

consciousness.4

The

bull

excommunicated

Elizabeth,

condemning

her as

a

usurper

and a heretic.

And

in

accordance

with feudal law as

interpreted

by

the Church

throughout

the

11

The

Tudor Constitution:Documentsand

Commentary,

d.

G. Elton

(Cambridge,

1960),

6-12,

61-2, 355-8, 363-8, 410 n. 4; P. Hughes, TheReformationn England,iii (London, 1954), 33-5.

12 M.

H.

Maguire,

'The Attack of the Common

Lawyers

on

the Oath

Ex

Officio',

in

Essays

in

History

and Political

Theory

n

Honor

of

CharlesH.

Mcllwain,

ed. C. Wittke

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1936),

199-229;

Robbins,

'Selden's

Pills',

310-11.

13 For the

interrogation

of Catholics

under

oath,

see

Samuel

Harsnett,

A

Declaration

of

Egregious

Popish

Impostures 1603),

258

(refers

to an

interrogation

in

1588);

Hughes,

The

Reformation

n

England,

372; Holmes,

Resistanceand

Compromise, 4, 120-1;

J.

Bellamy,

The Tudor Law

of

Treason

London, 1979),

109.

14 The bull is

printed

in The Tudor

Constitution,

416-18.

211

7/23/2019 519341

6/23

TOM MCALINDON

Middle

Ages,15

t

thereby

released her

subjects

from

their oath of

fealty.

The

Pope's presumption

that he

could

release

subjects

from this oath infuriated

Protestants.It was regularlyreviled from the pulpit throughoutthe remainder

of the

century

in the

'Homily

Against

Disobedience

and Wilful Rebellion'

(1570).

But

it

might

be said to have come most

sharply

into

focus at a

time and

in

circumstances

which would

have

made

a

deep impression

on

the

young

Shakespeare.

Edmund

Campion

and

a

group

of fellow

Catholics

were

arrested,

tried,

and executed for treason in 1581. This event was

regarded

by

the

government

as a

major

success

in

its war

against

the

missionary

priests,

whom

it

regarded

as

fomenters of rebellion

preparing

the

ground

for an invasion of

England

by

a continental

force. But the executions

provoked

much

protest,

and were followed

by

a

barrage

of Catholic and Protestant

pamphlets

and

tracts

on the

rights

and

wrongs

of the treason

charge,

writings

in

which the

papal

bull

and

its

attack

on the oath

of

fealty figured

prominently

(two

such

documents

are

reprinted

in Holinshed's

Chronicles'6).Among

those

arraigned

with

Campion

was a Father Thomas

Cottam,

executed

in

mid-1582. He was

known

by

the

government

to

have

planned

a

(probably

missionary)

visit to the

Stratford area.

His brother

John

had been the schoolmaster

at

Shakespeare's

school since

1579,

where he succeeded Thomas

Jenkins,

another

Catholic and

a former student of the brilliant Campion at Oxford. Suspect by association,

John

left Stratford

shortly

before the end of

January

1582,

returning

to

Lancashire,

his

stubbornly

Catholic native

county.

Given these facts

and,

more

importantly,

the

probability

that

John

Shakespeare

was a

recusant,

it

seems

reasonable

to assume that

Shakespeare

grew up

with

Catholic

beliefs or

sympathies.

He

may

well have known of

Campion's

remorse at

having

once

taken

the

Supremacy

oath

'against

his conscience'

in

order

to

proceed

to

the

MA.

It

may

even be the

case,

as Ernst

Honigmann

has

persuasively

argued,

that at the

beginning

of his

'lost

years'

he

went north to

serve,

on

Cottam's

recommendation,as a tutor to the Hoghtons, a wealthy Catholic family whose

huge

estate was close

to the Cottam

home.

1

These

possibilities

aside,

however,

it

remains

obvious that

Shakespeare

would have been

acutely

conscious from

the outset

of his

adult

life that the life-and-death

problems

of conscience which

afflicted

those

opposed

to

the

new

religio-political

order were

focused

on the

making

and

breaking

of oaths.

Involved in

Catholic,

feudalistic resistance to the new

order

was the

question

15

Guy Fourquin,

Lordship

and Feudalism in the

Middle

Ages,

trans.

I.

and A.

Lytton

Sells

(London, 1976),

231.

16

Raphael

Holinshed,

Chronicles

of

England,

Scotland and

Ireland,

6

vols.

(1587

edn.,

repr.

1808),

iv.

457-60,

515-33.

17 On the

Cottam

brothers,

Jenkins,

and

Campion,

see

T.

W.

Baldwin,

Shakespere's

mall

Latine

and Lesse

Greeke,

2

vols.

(Urbana,

Ill.,

1944),

ii.

483-6;

on

Campion's

remorse,

DNB,

s.v.

'Campion,

Edmund';

on

Shakespeare

and the

Hoghton family,

E.

Honigmann,

Shakespeare:

The

Lost Years'

(Manchester, 1985),

5-6, 19-22,

40-9,

126-32.

For a

recent consideration

of

Shakespeare's

putatively

Catholic connections

and

sympathies,

see G.

Taylor,

'Forms of

Opposition:

Shakespeare

and

Middleton',

English

Literary

Renaissance,

27

(1997),

283-314

(cf.

n. 36

below).

212

7/23/2019 519341

7/23

SWEARING AND FORSWEARING

IN SHAKESPEARE'SHISTORIES

of

loyalty

and

disloyalty

not

only

to one's

religious

convictions and

to

Crown

and

country,

but

also,

for

many,

to the code of

chivalry

and to

family

and

friends. The difficulties occasioned by these conflicting loyalties are apparent

in the

recorded sentiments

and

experiences

of the leaders of

the

major

Catholic

rebellions.

Using

the

argument

of ministerial

responsibility,

they

denied that

they

were

in

breach

of their

oath

of

allegiance

and

proclaimed

themselves

loyal

subjects

intent on

removing

evil

counsellors who misled

the ruler

in

religious

matters

and on

political

issues

such

as the succession

(Mary

Tudor,

then

Mary

Stuart).

The leaders

of the

Pilgrimage

of Grace

(1536)-by

far the

most

serious

threat to the Tudor

regime-devised

an oath for their followers which

sought

to reconcile

conflicting

loyalties.

Like

the name

of the

rising

itself,

its

title,

'The Oath

of

Honourable

Men',

constituted an

obviously desperate

claim

to moral and

political

rectitude.

In

this

oath,

the

pilgrims

swore

loyalty

to both

Church

and

king, promising

to

rid the

one of heretics

and the other of bad

councillors and

upstart

nobility.18

But there is

evidence

that the

leaders

remained

troubled in

conscience,

and

that

some of

their

followers were

induced

to

break the honourable

oath and

betray

their

relatives and

friends

on the

grounds

that their

oath

of

allegiance

had

priority.

One who resisted such

pressure

was Lord

Darcy.

He had

joined

the rebellion after

much

heart-

searching and was later urged by the King's deputy, the duke of Norfolk, to

capture

his

leader

and hand

him

over,

dead or alive. 'I cannot do

it in

no

wise',

he

protested,

'for I

have made

promise

to the

contrary,

and

my

coat

was

never

stained with

any

such blot.

And

my

Lord's Grace

your

master knoweth

well

enough

what a

nobleman's

promise

is.'

For,

added

Darcy,

in

a

poignant

remark

of

great

historical

significance,

'what is a man

but

[h]is promysse'.

Pressed

about

his oath

of

allegiance,

he

replied

that

he would

obey

the

King

'in all

laufull

thinges whych

is not

agenst

our

feth'.'9

Like

Darcy,

the

leaders

of

the

1569

rebellion,

the

earls of Northumberland

and

Westmorland,

were

initially

troubled and irresolute, wondering 'whether we ought by Gods lawes to rise

against

our

Prince or

no;

being

our

anoynted

Prince';

Westmorland

feared

that

by

rebelling

he would blot the unsullied honour of

his

house

forever.

They

believed,

however,

that

rebellion would

be lawful

if Elizabeth were excommu-

nicated;

but

the

promised

bull

did

not

arrive in

time,

and

they

felt

compelled

to

proceed

without

it.

In

so far as

they

settled

the matter with their

conscience,

they

did so

on the

ground

that

they

were

acting

'for the reformacion

of

religion,

and

the

preservation

of...

the

Queen

of

Scotts,

whom we

accompted

by

Gods

lawe and

mans lawe to

be

right

heire'

if

Elizabeth died

without issue.20

Such were the

pressures

and

the

uncertainties

of the time

that,

among

the

lowly

and

the

great,

brother

betrayed

brother,

friend

friend,

neighbour

neighbour,

servant master and

mistress;

from the

Tudor

archives

one could

18 M. H.

Dodds and R.

Dodds,

The

Pilgrimage

of

Grace 1536-1537

and

the

Exeter

Conspiracy,

vols.

(Cambridge,

1915),

i.

175-6, 182,

342.

19 Ibid. ii.

291-3,

303-4.

20 Memorials

of

the Rebellion

of

1569,

ed.

C.

Sharp (London,

1840),

196,

202-5.

213

7/23/2019 519341

8/23

TOM

MCALINDON

compose

a dismal

encyclopaedia

of

willing

and reluctant treacheries. Once

more the

story

begins-in truly archetypal

fashion-with

Henry

VIII.

Heavily

outnumbered by the northern rebels, and afraid to engage them in battle,

Norfolk

wrote to

Henry

for

advice.

Henry

replied

by

telling

him to

temporize

and

promise

anything:

'esteeme

no

promise you

should make

to the

rebels

nor

think

your

honour touched

in the

breach

of

it'.21

Promised redress of

their

grievances,

the leaders disbanded their

forces,

and in

due

time were

imprisoned

and executed.

With Norfolk's

self-congratulation

in

this

episode

compare

the self-hatred

of Robert

Constable,

a Catholic of

distinguished

family

who volunteered

to

spy

on the leaders of

the

1570 rebellion

in the

hope

of

recovering

the

inheritance lost

because

of his

grandfather's

nvolvement

in

the

Pilgrimage

of Grace: 'A

trayterous

kind of service that I am

wayded

in,

to

trap

them that trust

me,

as

Judas

did

Christ'.22

Or

compare

the

misery

of

Francis

Throckmorton,

who

in

1583

passed

from the hands of the

rackmaster

groaning:

'Now

I

haue

disclosed the secrets of

hir

who was the deerest

thing

unto me in the world ...

sith I

haue

failed

of

my

faith towards

her,

I

care

not if

I

be

hanged

. .

.

Chi a

perso

la

fede,

a

perso

l'honore.'23

Perhaps

the most immediate and obvious reason

for

the

conspicuous

emphasis

on

swearing

and

forswearing

in

Shakespeare's

English

history

plays lies in the nature of his sources: the Chronicles' account of the

Yorkist-Lancastrian

conflict contains an abundance

of

royal

and

aristocratic

perjuries,

collective

symptoms

of a

disintegrating

social order. But Shake-

speare

seizes on this

aspect

of his sources and renders

it

far more

prominent

by

means of fictional additions and

through

structural, ironic,

and

stylistic

emphases.

And a

major

reason for this

emphasis,

I

suggest,

was his

perception

that the

subject

of

swearing

and

forswearing crystallized

much of

the

malaise

and

anguish

of his own

century.

The

government

hoped

that

by

means of

obligatory

oaths and their attendant

penalties

'the nation would

form itself.

.

.

into a sworn commune to establish the new settlement'.24But towards the end

of

the sixteenth

century, anyone looking

back could have seen that in

this

process

of coercive

change

the oath was

devalued,

the

feudal ethic

debased,

all

protestations

of

truth,

loyalty,

and honour

rendered

suspect,

and

language

itself

corrupted.

These illnesses are

dramatized

with

increasing

invention

and

subtlety

in

Shakespeare's

histories from

Henry

VI

through

to

Henry

IV;

and

although

it is

only

in

KingJohn

that

the

analogy

with

contemporaryexperience

is

rendered

wholly

unmistakable,

t must have been

obvious nonetheless.

Back

in

1569,

Thomas

Norton,

whose

tracts

condemning

the

contemporaneous

21

Dodds

and

Dodds,

Pilgrimage of

Grace,

ii.

15. On

treachery

and distrust

during

Elizabeth's

reign among

members

of

the same

family (accentuated by government

rewards

and

promises

of

protection

for

informers),

see A.

O.

Meyer, England

and

the Catholic Church

Under

Queen

Elizabeth,

trans.

J.

R. McKee

(London, 1915),

170-1.

22

Memorials

of

the Rebellion

of

1569,

146.

23

Holinshed, Chronicles,

v.

43.

24 F. M.

Powicke,

The

Reformation

n

England

(London,

1941),

48.

214

7/23/2019 519341

9/23

SWEARING

AND FORSWEARING

IN

SHAKESPEARE'SHISTORIES

rebellion

in the north were influential in

propagandist

literature

throughout

Elizabeth's

reign,

likened

the

divisions caused

by

that

rebellion to those

produced by the conflict between the houses of York and Lancaster in the

previous century:

'so

long

and so

great

uncertainties

which side were true men

and which were

traitors,

and

for how manie daies and houres

they

should be so

esteemed'.25

III

Almost as

important perhaps

as the

religio-political

conflicts

of the sixteenth

century

for an

understanding

of

Shakespeare's

obsession

with truth and

treachery

in the histories was the

profound

challenge

which Machiavelli's

political philosophy

constituted

for all those

in

Tudor

England

who had an

educated interest

in

politics

and

history.

More

immediately disturbing

than

Machiavelli's exclusion

of

God

and divine will

from

politics

was his bland

discussion

of

fidelity

in The

Prince,

chapter

18,

that

'foundational

text of

early

modern

political thought':26

Everyone

admits how

praiseworthy

t is

in

a

prince

to

keep

faith,

and

to

live

with

integrity

and not

with

craft.

Nevertheless ur

experience

has been

that those

princes

who have donegreat hingshave held faithof littleaccount,and have knownhowto

circumvent

he intellect

of

men,

and

in

the end

haveovercome hose

who haverelied

on their word.27

Well before

Shakespeare

launched

into

political

drama,

Englishmen

were

familiar with Machiavelli

and saw

possible

or actual connections

between

his

theories and

English

political practice.

In 1537 Lord

Morley

wrote

to

Cromwell: 'This

book of

Machiavelli,

de

Principe,

is

surely

a

good

thing

for

your

Lordship

and for

our

Sovereign

Lord

in

Council'.28

But

wittingly

or

not,

their

sovereign

lord had a few

months earlier

put chapter

18 to the test

in his

vulpine

dealings

with the

pilgrim

leaders.

Another admirer

of Machiavelli

was

the learned

traveller

and student of

political

history

William

Thomas,

who

25 A

Warnyng

gaynst

he

dangerous

ractises f

Papistes,

nd

specially

he

parteners f

the late

Rebellion,

ig.

D5v-Clr,

in

All

Such reatises

s hauebeen

ately

publishedy

Thomas

orton

1569).

Nortonwas

also a

governmentnquisitor,

rackmaster,

translator

f

Calvin,

and co-author

f

England's

irst ormal

ragedy,

Gorboduc.

or his influence

n later

propagandist

riting,

ee

J.

K.

Lowers,

Mirrors

or

Rebels:

A

Studyof

Polemical

iterature

elating

o the

Northern ebellion

f

1569

(Berkeley,

Calif., 1953),

36, 55,

64.

26

J.

Kirschner,

eview

of

Prodi,

II

Sacramento

el

Potere,

TheAmerican

Historical

Review,

8

(1993),

1583.

I share

Kirschner's

urprise

hat

Prodi's

magisterial

tudy ignores

Machiavelli's

notorious iewson

political

perfidy.

27

Everyman

dition

London,

1952),

97.

Compare

Machiavelli's

ulogy

of

Castruccio

Castra-

cani:

He was

delightful

mong

riends,

but

terrible o

his

enemies; ust

to his

subjects;

eady

o

play

alsewiththe

unfaithful,

nd

willing

o

overcome

y

fraud hose

whomhe desired

o

subdue,

becausehe was

wont to

say

that it

was the

victory

hat

brought

he

glory,

not the

methodof

achieving

t'

(ibid.

199).

28 Letters nd

Papers, oreign

ndDomestic:

enry

VIII, 1539,

vol.

xiv,

pt.

1

(1891),285,

cited

n

F.

Raab,

The

English

ace

of

Machiavelli

London,

1964),

49;

cf.

W. G.

Zeeveld,

Foundations

f

Tudor

olicy London,

1948),

186.

215

7/23/2019 519341

10/23

TOM McALINDON

vigorously

defended

Henry's

handling

of the

rebels

in

The

Pilgrim,

a

dialogue

on

Henry's

life and actions written

shortly

after his death. At

first,

Thomas

insists that the promises which seduced the rebels were sincere and were

broken

only

because the

leaders

themselves

proved

faithless;

but later

he

implicitly

accepts

that the

promises

were not made in

good

faith,

and

justifies

them

by

reference to Machiavelli's most

fundamental

principle: any

action

is

justifiable

which

successfully

promotes

the

public

welfare.29

Clerk of the

Privy

Council

in Edward's

reign,

Thomas

set

himself

up

as

unofficial tutor

to

the

young king

in

writings

which both

implicitly

and

explicitly

commend

Machiavelli's

political

realism.30

By

contrast,

the

Catholic,

John

Leslie,

in

his

Treatise

of

Treasons

gainst

Queen

Elizabeth

and the Crown

ofEngland (1572)

takes a

characteristically

negative,

Elizabethan

view of

Machiavelli

in

his

account of the

way

in

which the

changes

of

religion

initiated

by Henry

affected

the nation.

England,

he

says,

has

become

a

place

wher

both

by

wordand

example

f the

Rulers,

he

ruledare

taught

with

every

change

of Princeto

change

also the

face of their

faith

and

religion:

wher,

in

apparence

nd

show

only,

a

Religion

s

pretended,

now

one,

now

another,

hey

force not

greatly

which

... where t is free

to

slaunder,

o

belie,

to

forswear,

o

accuse,

o

corrupt,

o

oppresse,

o

robbe,

o

murther,

ndto commit

every

other

outrage,

everso

barbarous

(thatpromiseth

o advance

he

present

Policie in

hand)

. . .

that

I

cal

properly

a

Machiavellian tate

and

Governance.31

Looking

at

England

in

the late

Middle

Ages,

Shakespeare

saw a

comparable

spectacle

of

Machiavellian

expediency

and

treachery;

and the

manifestly

topical King

John

suggests

that he

saw Tudor

history

in

a similar

light.

The

question

he had

to ask

in

the

histories was whether

the

Machiavellian

attitude

to

expedient

treachery actually

worked

to

the

benefit of

the

prince

and the

commonwealth,

and this

question

he

answered

emphatically

in

the

negative.

Expedient

perfidy

invariably

makes

a

bad

situation

worse,

infecting

relation-

ships

with

the

poison

of

distrust,

and

producing

bitterness,

instability,

and

violence.

Shakespeare's

delineation in the

histories of a

near-universal

corrup-

tion of

truth and trust

points

repeatedly

to the

decay

of

chivalry

and its

conception

of

nobility.

But the

chivalric ideal

itself is

not

belittled;

on

the

contrary,

honour and

nobility

are identified with

truth,

and

nobility-as-truth

is

shown

to

be essential

to

effective

leadership

and

social

harmony.

Shakespeare

thus

endorses not

only

the

chivalric ideal but

also the

classical

and

humanist

doctrine,

heavily

emphasized

in

Sir Thomas

Elyot's

Boke

named he

Governour

(1531), that fidelity or promise-keeping s the foundationof justiceandorder.32

29

The

Pilgrim:

A

Dialogue

on

the

Life of

King

Henry

the

Eighth,

ed.

J.

A.

Froude

(London, 1861),

50-5. On

Machiavelli's

guiding

principle,

see

J.

W.

Allen,

Political

Thought

n

the Sixteenth

Century(London,

1969),

472.

30

John

Strype,

Ecclesiastical

Memorials,

vol.

ii,

pt.

2

(Oxford,

1822),

365-72.

Thomas is

discoursing

on one of

Machiavelli's

major

themes

(The

Prince,

ch.

25;

Discourses,

ii.

7-9).

31

Facsimile

reprint

(Ilkley

and

London, 1975),

sig.

A5-5'.

32

Cicero,

The

Offices,

Everyman

edn.

(London, 1937),

8

('to

stand to

one's words in

all

promises

216

7/23/2019 519341

11/23

SWEARING

AND

FORSWEARING IN SHAKESPEARE

HISTORIES

IV

Perjury, treachery,and cynicism are omnipresent in the trilogy which marks

the

beginning

of

Shakespeare's

career

as

a

dramatist. 'Trust

nobody',

declares

Buckingham

in 2

Henry

VI

(IV.

iv.

57).

But more

cynical

altogether

is

the kind

of

political

advice offered

by

Alen9on

in

Part

1

and

by

Edward and

Richard

(Gloucester)

in

Part 3. When

the defeated

French

king

is

urged by

York to

accept

a truce with

Henry

and

'swear

allegiance

.

.

as

thou

art

knight'

(IHVI

V. vi.

169-70),

Alencon-'that

notorious Machiavel'

(V.

vi.

74)-counsels

Charles to take the oath but

to 'break

t when

your pleasure

serves'

(V.

vi.

164).

Edward

urges

his father to

ignore

his

sworn

agreement

that the crown should

remainwith

Henry

while he

lives,

adding

that 'for a

kingdom any

oath

may

be

broken';

more

effectively,

Richard

glibly

assures their father that he

would

not

be

guilty

of

perjury

in

this

instance,

since

his oath was

not

taken

'before

a true

and

lawful

magistrate'

(3HVI

I.

ii.

2-27).

The

chief

victims of the

prevailing

spirit

of

treachery

in

Henry

VI

are

Duke

Humphrey,

Talbot,

and

Henry

himself.

Humphrey

is

the last

representative

of

England's

political

rectitude, Talbot,

'the noble

chevalier'

(IHVI

IV. iii.

14),

of its

martial honour.

Apart

from the

revengers

Clifford

and

Warwick, they

are the

only

men

in

the

trilogy

whose sworn word

proves

true,

and

they

are undone

by

the

oath-breaking

and

malicious deceits

of

others;

their downfall

spells

the loss

of

France and

a

betrayal

of

the honour

won for

England

('this

warlike

isle',

2HVI

I. i.

122)

by Henry

V

in

regaining

'his true inheritance'

(I.

i.

79). Well-meaning

and

pious,

but

feeble,

the

King-'perjured

Henry'

(3HVI

II.

ii.

81),

'False

King'

(2HVI

V. i.

91)-is

corrupted

by

the

prevailing spirit.33

He allows himself to be

trapped

in

a

marriage

founded on a broken betrothal

pledge,

and

twice breaks

his sworn

faith

to his rival York. These

betrayals

diminish what little

authority

he

has;

like all the other perjuries in the three plays, they produce violence and

confusion

and

inspire

him

with fear that God

will exact

punishment

for his

perjuries

(3HVI

II.

ii.

7).

Henry

is

finally

murdered

by treachery's

ultimate

embodiment,

the future

tyrant

who claims

he can teach 'the

murderous

Machiavel'

(3HVI

III.

ii.

193)

a

lesson.

In Richard's

concluding promise

that

he

will

dispose

of his brothers

Edward

(to

whom

he has

just

sworn

allegiance)

and

Clarence,

the disease

of

political

bond-breaking

reaches

the

heart of human

relationships:

'I

have

no brother ...

I

am

myself

alone'

(V.

vi.

81-4).

This would seem to be

Shakespeare's

most

pointed response

to

Machiavelli's

cynical

wisdom.

and

bargains;

which

we call

justice'),

152-63

(i.

5,

iii.

24-32);

Elyot,

The Boke named

the

Governour,

167-82

('faith,

which I

by

the

authority

of

Tully

do name the foundation

of

justice').

33 On

Henry's forswearing,

see also

Kelly,

'Oaths

in

Shakespeare's

Henry

VI

Plays',

364.

217

7/23/2019 519341

12/23

TOM

McALINDON

V

As in Henry VI and KingJohn, forswearing n RichardIII is built into theme

and structure.

Perjury

and murder are

virtually synonymous

here,

while

each

of the ironic retributions which constitute the

plot

is

conceived as divine

punishment

for

'Perjury,

perjury,

in

the

high'st

degree '

(V.

v.

150). Clarence,

Buckingham,

and Richard

explicitly recognize

this

pattern

in

their

lives;

and

although

he dies at the start of the

play, King

Edward

too

is

subject

to it. His

futile

imposition

of an oath of reconciliation on his

divided followers is

ironically

counterpointed

by

his

unwitting

allusion to the broken

matrimonial

pledge

that lost

him

the

support

of his

ambassadorWarwick

n

3

Henry

VI and

produced the divisions he is now trying to heal. Piously anticipating divine

grace,

Edward tells his

quarrelsome

family

and friends:

'I

every day

expect

an

embassage

|

From

my

redeemer to

redeem me hence'

(RIII

II. i.

3-4):

but

these words recall the

shame

and

outrage

of Warwick:

you

disgraced

me

in

my

embassade'

(3HVI

IV.

iv.

5).

Edward's

brother-in-law,

Lord

Rich,

who remains

loyal

to Edward's son

and

heir,

is later

executed

by

Richard,

as he

correctly says,

'For

truth,

for

duty,

and

for

loyalty'

(RIII

III.

iii.

3).

The

phrase pinpoints

the feudal

ethic,

and the

situation stresses the literal

impossibility

of

living up

to that

code

in a

time of

tyranny.

The

supreme

test of the code arises

when

a

despotic

or

desperate

ruler asks one of his vassals to

secretly

dispose

of another. This test

occurs

in

Richard

III,

King John,

and Richard

II;

as the

politically

well informed

must

have

known,

it also

occurred

in

Elizabeth's

reign.

Terrified

by

what the

execution

of her

troublesome Catholic cousin

would do to her own inter-

national

standing,

Elizabeth

suggested

to her

ministers,

and then to her

secretary

of state William

Davison,

that some

loyal subject

should

privately

deal the death blow.

Against

Davison's

advice,

she wrote to

Mary's gaoler,

Sir

Amyas Paulet, asking him to do just that. But although he disliked Mary,

Paulet had

assured

her he was 'a man

of honour

and

a

gentleman'

and would

do no such

cruelty upon

her;

so he

wrote

indignantly

to

Elizabeth: God forbid

that

I

should make so foul a

shipwreck

of

my

conscience,

or

leave so

great

a

blot on

my

poor posterity,

to shed blood

without law

or warrant'.34

n

Richard

III, however,

Clarence's murderers

justify

themselves

by

telling

him

they

are

obeying

the

King;

to no

avail,

their victim

reminds them that

the feudal ethic does not

make

kings

the final

judges

of what

is

right

and

true:

'Erroneous

vassals,

the

great

King

of

Kings I

Hath . .

.

commanded

I

That

thou shalt do no murder.Wil

you

then

I Spurn

at his

edict,

and fulfil a man's?'

(I.

iv.

190-3).

To his

credit,

the Second

Murderer is

troubled

in

conscience

before and after the

killing

and discards his

share of the

fee,

saying,

'How

fain,

like

Pilate,

would

I

wash

my

hands

[

Of this

most

grievous,

guilty

murder'

(I.

iv.

267-8).

His

words

point

to the

more

interesting

case of Sir Robert

Brakenbury,

the civilized

lieutenant of the

Tower,

Clarence's

keeper.

Reading

34 A.

Fraser,

Mary Queen of

Scots

(London,

1969),

62-3.

218

7/23/2019 519341

13/23

SWEARING

AND

FORSWEARING

IN

SHAKESPEARE HISTORIES

the

commission

carried

by

the

murderers,

presumably

with

King

Edward's

seal

(courtesy

of

Richard),

he

says:

'I

will

not reason what

is meant

hereby,

I

Because I will be guiltless of the meaning' (I. iv. 90-1); he then gives the

bearers

the

keys

and tells

them where Clarence lies

sleeping (lines

92-8).

Much

later,

when he

has the

young prince

in

his

care,

he

refuses to

admit the

boy's

mother,

Queen

Elizabeth,

saying

that he

is

'bound

by

oath' to the

King

not to

do

so;

but

although

such a command

must have made

him

suspicious,

and

although

Elizabeth

points

out that the Protector

is not the

King,

he

merely

mumbles

an

apology

while

remaining

faithful to the de

facto

king (IV.

i.

27).

Here

certainly

is the

compromised

conscience

of a

prudent

survivor,

a

type

more common

no doubt than

an

Amyas

Paulet

in

the sixteenth

century.

The

problem

of

truth,

duty,

and

loyalty

recurs

in

magnified

form a few

scenes later

in

the

intriguing

case of Thomas

Stanley.

Before

Bosworth,

Richard

rightly suspects

Stanley

of

colluding

with

Richmond,

interrogates

him

sharply,

and

warns that his son

is

being kept

as

hostage

to ensure his

loyalty.

In

response

to Richard's

questions,

Stanley says

he will

'prove

true',

adding:

'mistrust

me not ... Most

mighty sovereign,

|

You have no cause to

hold

my

friendship

doubtful.

I

never

was,

nor never

will

be,

false'

(IV.

iv.

409-24).

Although

his untruth is

clearly emphasized,

(some)

Catholics

in

Shakespeare's

audience might have defended him, arguingthat his answers could have been

intentionally equivocal

or

accompanied

by

a mental

reservation,

and as such

were

justifiable

on

the

grounds

that his motive was

to save an innocent

life.

Clearly,

however,

Stanley's

'untruth' is not

meant to tell

against

him,

since

Shakespeare

exaggerates

his historical

role as

founding

father of the Tudor

dynasty

and

leaves

him with an untroubled

conscience.35

Prudently

evasive

double-dealing

of

Stanley's

kind

might

have saved the Duke

of

Buckingham:

his

career

as

Richard's

most trusted

aide comes to

an end when

he recoils from

the

suggestion

that he

should murder

the

young princes,

and

compounds

his

error

by asking

Richard to honour a

promise

of reward for services already

rendered.

It is

a

commonplace

of

political

history

that

in

totalitarian

and divided

states

language

and

symbolism

lose

all

stability

and become

a focus for confusion

and

topsy-turvydom.

During

the

suppression

of the 1956

uprising

in

Hungary,

for

example,

Russian

soldiers

who found

their

tanks daubed

with swastikas

read

these

signs

as

confirming

the official

version

of current

events-they

were

resisting

fascist counter-revolutionaries.

Semiotic

disorder of

this kind occurs

conspicuously

in the histories

for the

first time

in

Richard

III,

most

obviously

in the

tyrant's

negotiations

with

Queen

Elizabeth

on his

hoped-for

marriage

o

35

Father-in-law

of

Henry

VII,

Stanley,

the

first earl of

Derby,

was forefather

of Lord

Strange,

the fourth

earl,

with

whose

acting company

Shakespeare

was associated

in the

early

1590s.

On the

care

with which

Shakespeare

magnifies

the first

earl's contribution

to

founding

the

Tudor

dynasty,

see

Honigmann,

Shakespeare:

The

Lost

Years',

63-4.

For the notion

of

morally

justified

disobedience

in

Shakespeare,

see

R.

Strier,

'Faithful Servants:

Shakespeare's

Praise

of Dis-

obedience',

in H. Dubrow

and

R.

Strier

(edd.),

The Historical

Renaissance:

New

Essays

on

Tudor

Literature

and Culture

(Chicago

and

London,

1988),

104-33.

219

7/23/2019 519341

14/23

TOM MCALINDON

her

daughter.

His

desperate

attempt

to

secure

his

position

by

this

marriage

s

marked

by

the

collapse

of

language

as

a means of

persuasion

and

commun-

ication. Urging Elizabeth to do his wooing for him ('Be eloquent on my behalf

to

her'),

he

is told that his

past

invalidates

every

word he would

send,

reinforced

though

it

is

by

his most solemn vows and

symbols.

To swear

by

his

George,

his

garter,

or his

crown, says Elizabeth,

is to

swear

'By

nothing',

since

his

'broken

faith'

has

profaned

and

disgraced

these

tokens of

knightly

honour

and

royal glory (IV.

iv.

288-302).

VI

The

problem

of what is 'true'and

'right'

(this

play's

two

key

words)

dominates

King

John.

That

Shakespeare

should turn

aside from

his examination of the

Yorkist-Lancastrian wars to

write

on

John's

reign,

either

shortly

before or

after Richard

III,

seems

oddly

digressive.

The

impression, however,

is

misleading,

for

this is where

Shakespeare gives

free

rein to

his

mounting

interest

in

the

way

the

past

can be

made

to

mirror the

present;

this is where the

religious

element

in

his

contemporary

subtext

clearly

emerges.

The

extreme

relevance of

the

play

to the

religio-political

history

of

Tudor

England

is,

of

course, common knowledge;we owe much in particular o the Victorian critic

Richard

Simpson,

who

carefully

listed its

topical parallels.36

ts

contemporary

relevance is

virtually spelt

out

in

Falconbridge's

famous

concluding

lines to the

effect that

England's immunity

to invasion

depends

on

its

being

'true' to itself.

This

epitomizes

an

idea

that had been foremost

in

the

national

consciousness

ever

since the 1569

rebellion,

when the state

began

to

be threatened

by

an

alliance of native

Catholics and an

invading

Catholic

force. The

phrase

also

occurs

in

3

Henry

VI,

where

Hastings

declares that

England

needs

no

alliance

with

France

to

withstand

'foreign

storms'

but

'is

safe,

if

true within

itself'

(IV.

i. 37-9). The idea itself is commonplace ('Everykingdomdivided againstitself

shall be

brought

to

naught', says

the

Bible);

but

it

is worth

noting

that its

first

known formulation in terms of

truth

occurs

in

a

versified Answer to

the

Proclamation

of

the rebels n

the North

(1569)-and

in a

King

John-like

context

which combines

charges

of

religious

hypocrisy

with

denunciations of an

unpatriotic willingness

to

expose England

to invasion

by

foreign

powers.37

The

action of

King

John

involves

a

series of

sworn

commitments,

each

a

violation

of

its

predecessor.

Almost

from

the

start,

'faith'

is

understood

in

the

sense both of

religion

and of truth

or

fidelity;

and

because of

the

religious

subject-matter,

the

violated code of

chivalry

becomes

specifically Christian,

an

36

'The Politics

of

Shakespere's

Historical

Plays',

New

Shakespere

ociety

Publications,

er. 1

no.

1

(1874),

396-441: 397-400. In

this

lengthy

and

important

essay, Simpson

presents Shakespeare

as

a

dramatist with Catholic

and feudal

sympathies

who

'took

the

opposition

side'

(p.

441)

in the

sense that

he

regretted

the decline of the

English

nobility

and the rise of

Tudor

authoritarianism.

37

'A

Prouerbe

olde,

no lande

there

is

I

that

can

this lande

subdue,

I

If we

agree

within

our

selves

I

and to our

Realme

be

true'

(sig.

A8V).

Cited

by

L. A.

Beaurline

in his edition

of

King

John

(Cambridge,

1990),

183

(he

does not note

the

revealing

context).

220

7/23/2019 519341

15/23

SWEARING

AND FORSWEARING IN SHAKESPEARE'SHISTORIES

exalted idealism

in

which

(as

in

the Grail

romances

and

the

ideology

of

the

Crusades)

secular and

spiritual

values are

conjoined.

Condemning King John

as a usurper, King Philip and the Duke of Austria present themselves as

'religiously provoke[d]'

(II.

i.

246)

and

'divinely

vowed

upon

the

right' (II.

i.

237)

of

the child Arthur

and his widowed

mother;

they

conceive

of themselves

as devout 'chevaliers'

(II.

i.

287)

following

in

the

steps

of Richard

Coeur

de

Lion,

who

'fought

the

holy

wars

in

Palestine'

(II.

i.

4)

and whose

lionskin

Austria

now wears. But

'commodity'

in

the

shape

of a

profitable

marriage

between

the

Dauphin

and

John's

niece

rapidly

undoes

their chivalrous

commitments.

Although

she has 'a

king's

oath to the

contrary'

(II.

ii.

10),

the

astonished widow finds

that her

champions

have

'Gone

to be married ...

Gone to swear

a

peace'

(II.

ii.

1).

Bitterly,

she dismisses

Philip

as

'a

counterfeit

I

Resembling majesty,

which

being

touched and

tried

|

Proves

valueless',

and

Austria as a

prototypal

Falstaff,

'A

ramping

fool,

to

brag

and

stamp,

and swear

I

Upon my party '

(III.

i.

25-7,

48-9).

But

the intervention

of the

papal legate

undoes the sworn

peace.

Because

he

claims to

be

'supreme

head' under God

in

ecclesiastical

as

well

as

political

affairs,

John

is

excommunicated,

his

subjects

are

urged

to revolt

from

allegiance,

and

Philip

is

commanded,

as

the

Pope's

vassal,

to

make

war

on

him. Philip is 'perplexed, and know[s] not what to say'; he 'hang[s] ... in

doubt'

(III.

i.

145-7).

Can

he

'unswear faith sworn'? Can

he

'play

fast and

loose

with

faith'?

According

to

Pandulph,

he

must,

or

he

will

'make

[political]

faith

an

enemy

to

[religious]

faith'

and incur excommunication

and

a

papal

curse

(III.

i.

168-89).

Cowed

as

well as

perplexed,

he

submits,

and the

invasion of

England

takes

place,

led

by

the

enthusiastic

Dauphin.

To ensure

its

success,

a

sworn

alliance

is

made

with two disaffected

English

lords;

but this

is

followed

by

a French

vow,

'sworn

...

Upon

the

altar at

Saint

Edmundsbury'

(V.

iv.

16-

18),

that

these unreliable

allies

will

be

subsequently

beheaded.

Although

commodity is his motive, the Dauphin chooses to gloss this invasion as an

honourable

endeavour-a

kind of

crusade-on

which

the

legate

has 'set the

name of

right

|

With

holy

breath'

(V.

ii.

67-8).

However,

since

John

now

submits

to the

Pope,

Pandulph

halts

the

invasion,

and

so the

grotesque

sequence

of violated

commitments comes

to an end.

Beginning

with

the

abandonment

of a widow

and her

child

by

their

avowed

champions,

and

ending

with the

collapse

of

a

pseudo-crusade,

the

wordy

'action'

of

this

play

constitutes

a

grim

travesty

of what

in

Richard

I

is called

'Christian

service

and

true

chivalry' (II.

i.

54).

Pandulph's

announcement

that

anyone

who

secretly

kills

John

will be

'Canonized

and

worshipped

as

a saint'

(KingJohn,

III.

i.

103),

and

his

cynical

recognition

that the

invasion will

probably provoke

John

to

murder

the

imprisoned

Arthur,

places

him on an

even lower

moral

plane

than

John.

There

is no

mistaking

the

play's

anti-papalism.

In

general,

too,

the ironic

light

thrown

on

the

attempt

of the

Pope

('Innocent' ),

his

'holy

legate',

and

his

subject princes

to endow the

quest

for

power

and

possession

with

an

entirely

221

7/23/2019 519341

16/23

TOM MCALINDON

religious

character is consistent

with the

demystifying strategies

used

by

Protestant

polemicists

against

the

self-justifying arguments

of Catholic

rebels and missionary priests.38Yet Shakespeare is bipartisan. John is not

the redeemed sinner

and

noble

precursor

of the Reformation

magined by

Bale,

Foxe,

and

the author of The Troublesome

eign of King

John,

for

he

dies

in

raging despair.

The moral dilemma

of the

disillusioned

English

earls and their

temporary

defection to the

papal

force

(reminiscent

of the troubled con-

sciences

of the northern earls

in

1569)

is treated with

remarkable

ympathy.39

Hubert's violation

of his

'voluntary

oath'

(III.

iii.

23,

IV.

i.

58)

to

kill

Arthur is

a

reminder that there

are limits to

the

loyalty

any

ruler

can

expect.

And

John's

craven

attempt

to blame Hubert

for his

nephew's

death,

together

with

Hubert's

protest

(not

in

any chronicle),

'Here is

your

hand

and

seal

for

what

I

did'

(IV.

ii.

216),

comes

dangerously

close to

Elizabeth.

Although

she

made

secretary

Davison

a

scapegoat

for her

cousin's

death,

he

had

made

sure

he was

in

possession

of her

signature

and seal for the execution.40

VII

Throughout

Richard

II

chivalric honour

is identified with truth

in

the

twin

sense of loyalty and honest speech. This twin conception informs three scenes

of

resounding

defiance and

challenge

where rivals all

speak

under oath

('which

God forbid a

knight

should

violate ',

I.

iii.

18)

while

accusing

one

another of

being

traitors and liars.

In

the

scene

of trial

by

combat, too,

the ritual

exchanges

between the

Knight

Marshal and the

combatants are used in

such

a

way

as to

identify knightly

honour with sworn

'truth'

(I.

iii.

10,

14,

18,

34,

41,

87,

96).

The debasement of the oath is

central to an

impression

that

'true

chivalry'

is

dead

and

even

that

language

itself has

been

rendered

valueless,

'hollow'

(I.

ii.

59,

iv.

9).

Once

Bolingbroke

is

crowned,

the strident

ironies of

what

might

be called

antonymic

nominalism invade the

dialogue,

words like

'true',

'loyal', 'traitor',

'gentle',

and

'kind'

being

used where

contrary

terms

would seem

more

appropriate.

From the

start,

attention is

drawn to

the

binding

oath

by

Richard himself.

Gaunt,

he

insists,

must not act

in

his

son's

appeal

as a

father but

according

to

his

'oath and bond'

(I.

i.

2)

as

a

loyal subject.

Bolingbroke

and

Mowbray

must

swear never to

conspire

against

Richard

in

exile.

Everyone

in

the

abdication

scene stands

condemned

for

breaking

the oath

of

allegiance;

Northumberland

later for undoing the King's marriage vow. But the characterization of

Bolingbroke

is

no less effective in

directing

attention

to the

importance

of

38 See T.

McAlindon,

'Pilgrims

of

Grace:

Henry

IV

Historicized',

Shakespeare

Survey,

48

(1995),

72-3.

39

Cf.

Barish,

'King John

and Oath

Breach',

15;

King John,

ed.

Beaurline,

pp.

54-5.

As

Barish

notes,

however,

several critics advance a

hostile

interpretation

of

the

English

earls.

40

Fraser,

Mary Queen

of

Scots, 621,

636-7. See

also

King

John,

ed.

E.

A.

J. Honigmann

(London, 1954),

pp.

xxviii-xxix.

222

7/23/2019 519341

17/23

SWEARING

AND

FORSWEARING

IN

SHAKESPEARE'S

HISTORIES

the

oath

and the

question

of

truth;

for

his

many

solemn claims to truth

are

consistently

ironized.

Calling

on

heaven to

be the record of his

speech,

he

claimsto be cherishinghis prince'ssafetywhen in fact he is bringinghis crimes

to

light.

He swears that he returned

from

exile

simply

to

reclaim his

title,

and

on

the assurance of

that

oath the Percies swear

to

aid

him

(II.

iii.

147-50);

but

Shakespeare

has altered Holinshed

to

show that

he left France with an

army

before

he was disinherited

(II.

i.

271-88).

He twice swears

'allegiance

and

true

faith

of heart' to Richard

while

threatening

him

with

his

army

(III.

iii.

36,

104).

Five

times he makes an

unsolicited

and

suspiciously

fulsome

promise

of

reward

to the Percies for

supporting

his

just

cause:

'My

heart this covenant

makes;

my

hand thus

seals

it'

(II.

iii.

50).

At

the

end he

denies

Exton

his

'good

word'

(V.

vi.

42),

and we wonder: Does

he have

one?

Is there such a

thing?

The dilemma of

the

subject

bound

by

'oath

I

And

duty'

(II.

ii.

112-13)

to

support

injustice

is

vividly

realized

in the

situation of York when

Bolingbroke

returns. We

respect

his

feelings

of

perplexity

and

distress;

but

the confidence

and

wholeheartedness with

which

he

subsequently

swears

allegiance

to

Bolingbroke,

and in

particular

his

determination

to have his son

(still

faithful

to

Richard)

condemned as

a

traitor,

seem

grotesque

and

morally

repellent.

Satirized

here,

perhaps,

is

the

combination

of

pragmatism,

'commodity',

and

holy zeal with which so many in the 'MachiavellianState and governance'of

Tudor

England

switched

allegiance

from

one faith to

another,

and

especially

those

who

betrayed

their

own

kin in the effort to confirm and

profit

by

their

new-minted

loyalty.

But

perhaps

the

play

comes

nearest to

disclosing

its

link

with

the

religio-political

history

of the

sixteenth

century

when

the

imprisoned

Richard

juxtaposes

'thoughts tending

to ambition'

and

'thoughts

of

things

divine'.

He

adds

that

the

latter are 'intermixed

I

With

scruples,

and do

set

the

faith itself

I

Against

the

faith'

(V.

v.

12-14):

which

is

an

echo

of

King

John,

where

the

link is

indisputable,

and where

Pandulph

tells

Philip:

'So mak'st

thou [political]faith an enemy to [religious] faith,

I

And like a civil war, sett'st

oath

to

oath,

I

Thy tongue against

thy tongue'

(III.

i.

189-91).

VIII

Henry

V

being,

among

other

things,

a

celebration of

national

unity,

Shake-

speare's

extended dramatization

of

civil strife

in

England

effectively

concludes

with

the

second

part

of

Henry

IV.

Arguably, therefore,

it is with

great

deliberation

that

in the first scene

of

2

Henry

IV he introduces

to the

serious

political

narrative

a character

called

Morton

who never

appears

again

and for

whom

there is

no

precedent

in

any

of

the

sources.

Morton

has ridden

north

to

bring

Northumberland

news

of

Hotspur's

death.

His

primary

purpose,

however,

is to ensure

that this

news does

not

weaken

the Earl's

already

half-

hearted

will to

rebel,

and to

encourage

him with

the news

that the

Archbishop

of

York has now

turned insurrection

to

religion, deriving

from

heaven

his

223

7/23/2019 519341

18/23

TOM MCALINDON

quarrel

and his

cause

(I.

i.

200-7).

Since

Morton was the name of an

English

priest

well known

for

having

come from

Rome in

1569

on 'an

ambassage

of

rebe