In both Henry IV Part I and Henry IV Part II, Shakespeare explains why Henry IV cannot succeed in his role as king. There are many reasons why Henry IV falls short of the characteristics needed for this position, but the Royal Shakespeare Company’s performance emphasized several things about Henry IV that best explained his failures in comparison with Henry V’s successes. Firstly, Henry IV did not come about the crown naturally so he does not believe in himself as the natural ruler and neither do the people of England. The RSC also focused on several inherent characteristics of Henry IV that limit his ability to lead. On the surface, this immediately reminded me of Machiavelli and his advice for political rulers in The Prince. Many of Henry IV’s characteristics hold him back, but Henry V does not seem to have the same problems in Part II because he succeeds in achieving the leadership qualities encouraged by Machiavelli that Henry IV does not embody.
One of the main reasons why Henry IV cannot be a legitimate leader is because he did not ascend to the throne naturally. His wrongdoings against Richard II hold him back because he doubts his own abilities and legitimacy and the public also doubts him. Henry V, however, does not suffer from this limitation. He will achieve the crown by the natural death of his father, so he will have confidence in his own legitimacy and the public will be less likely to doubt him. Some of Henry IV’s faults are derived from his immense guilt over killing Richard II, which hangs on him like a heavy cloak. In the RSC production, Henry IV cannot seem to bear the physical weight of the crown. He rarely wears it on his head, often carrying it around on stage in a way that reveals his insecurity as a king. He will never be able to let go of this horrible sin and his guilt limits his ability to lead. Henry IV also has several personal characteristics that make leadership difficult for him as a king. He fails to achieve many of the important leadership skills necessary for monarchs, according to the standards set by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince.
Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of princely values, revealing that princely virtues must be embraced fully by the leader. If the leader cannot fully embrace virtuosity, the people will not recognize the virtues he can achieve. Machiavelli argues that prudence is the most important virtue for princes so that he will “know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would take his state from him and to be on guard against those that do not” (Machiavelli 62). Henry IV immediately fails at achieving this because of the means by which he succeeded to the crown. His subjects will never view him as virtuous and he does not fully believe in his own virtuousness. This is most evident in the RSC production of Henry IV Part II when the king is close to his death and he speaks to his son, Hal, admitting that his sins have followed him and have created problems for him since he got to the throne. Henry IV explains to Hal that although he was unable to escape these sins, his son will have a virtuous ascension to the crown and will not suffer from his father’s limitations.
Henry V achieves many of Machiavelli’s suggestions that his father fails to reach, which I found most evident in the RSC’s portrayal of Hal’s journey to adulthood, his relationship with Falstaff, and his eventual banishment of Falstaff. Machiavelli advises that a prince seem to have a strong faith, but explains that it is dangerous for a prince to actually exercise these qualities because it makes him more vulnerable and subject to the cruelties of other human beings. In order for the prince to be well liked, he must appear to observe these qualities. Machiavelli gives the example of Alexander VI who “never did anything, nor ever thought of anything, but how to deceive men, and he always found a subject to whom he could do it” (Machiavelli 70). This is most apparent in Hal’s behavior when he first begins to remove himself from the people of Eastcheap, but before he has fully embraced his status as an adult. Hal does a good job of appearing to be a changed man, but he initially continues with small pranks and visits to Falstaff and Eastcheap. Hal’s changing relationship with Falstaff, especially leading up to his banishment of Falstaff in Part II, reveals his ability to achieve other qualities that Machiavelli argues are necessary for successful princely rule.
Machiavelli argues that although a prince should avoid being hated, it is okay for him to be feared by his subjects. He explains that a prince “should not care about the infamy of cruelty” because too much mercy will only show the people that they are free to break the laws of the prince (Machiavelli 65). This advice is especially relevant to Hal when he makes the decision to banish Falstaff. Although many in Eastcheap will view his banishment as cruel, Henry V banishes Falstafff as a result of Falstaff’s own poor decisions and bad behavior. It is not an unjustified response to Falstaff’s irresponsible behavior and it makes sense that a king cannot be associated with it. Machiavelli’s example reveals that although it seems cruel and inhuman to remove yourself from a friendship, the subjects will forgive harsh behavior like this as long as there is just cause for the treatment. Falstaff’s many years of lying, thievery, drunkenness, and irresponsibility allows the public to accept his ultimate downfall.
Henry V is able to embody many of the characteristics that Machiavelli argues allow a prince to lead successfully. His ability to recognize the importance of these leadership skills reveals his princely prudence, another characteristic strongly encouraged by Machiavelli. Henry IV’s guilt over killing Richard II, combined with his constant concern for his subjects prevents him from succeeding to the crown as his son does. The RSC portrays these limitations exceedingly well in Part II, revealing Henry in Eastcheap as he admits, “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”. This scene was very powerful and revealing, portraying many of the failures of Henry IV and the limitations that keep him from ruling successfully. Henry V’s banishment of Falstaff successfully juxtaposes the portrayal of his father in the RSC performance. Alex Hassell’s performance was breathtaking: a Henry V that seems almost robotic, unable to relate to his old immature self, a character who has left his past behind in order to embody the princely values he needs to be a king. Included in these brutal but necessary characteristics described by Machiavelli is the banishment of Falstaff.