Land In Shakespeare

Richard: Ay, no. No, ay; for I must nothing be. Therefore, no `no`, for I resign to thee. Now mark me how I will undo myself. (Richard II 4.1.201-203)

This passage from Shakespeare's Richard II perfectly illuminates the constant dialogue between the physical realm of property and the more abstract realm of identity that Shakespeare creates in his plays, as Richard's very essence begins to unravel with the material loss of his kingdom. In this play as well as in the opening of King Lear Shakespeare establishes a complex interplay between the material and immaterial significance of land and objects, thus leading us to carefully scrutinize the various meanings of 'property'. In a physical sense property pertains to objects that belong to someone; they are defined in this way through ownership, and most commonly through the ownership of land. Physical property can also operate in a metatheatrical capacity, as 'property' may refer to the actual object that is being used by the actor on stage, commonly abbreviated in modern parlance to 'prop'. However, this term can also take on a more abstract meaning, as it is synonymous with 'characteristic' and 'quality', which implies an object of identity that cannot be measured by physical means, but is manifested through character and personality. In both of these plays, and others, Shakespeare is keenly aware of this variety of meaning and therefore keeps them in a state of constant flux. He demonstrates how physical properties such as land and kingdom are inextricably linked with the moral and emotional properties of the characters that interact with them, whether it is through the ownership, the giving, or the dispossession of the property. In the deposition scene of Richard II Shakespeare portrays the complete breakdown of a king who has effectively lost himself through the loss of his crown. In the most basic respect Richard has lost all his ruling authority and ownership over his kingdom, leaving him without land and a title, but almost by the point where York demands of him "The resignation of thy state and crown" (4.1.179) we begin to see the larger implications that this deposition has for Richard. He asks Bolingbroke to hold the crown with him:

Here, cousin, On this side my hand, and on that side, thine. (181-82).

The crown has therefore become more than just an ornamental headdress denoting royalty, as it links these two enemies together and symbolizes the passing of title, kingdom and status from one to the other. Shakespeare provides a significant moment where all of the elements of 'property' converge in a single instance. In a metatheatrical sense the crown would be most likely represented by some sort of headdress; some physical representation of the objet that Shakespeare refers to in his dialogue. This moment marks the culmination of Richard and Bolingbroke's fight for the crown after Bolingbroke returns from exile to depose Richard. In this moment where both actors have stretched out their arms to hold this crown 'prop' we see a physical representation of the power struggle central to the play; Bolingbroke on one side, Richard on the other, and the crown in the middle. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the definitive way of staging this moment, but from analyzing the language it seems as though this would be the most appropriate way, as it clearly conveys Shakespeare's notion of a power struggle. This image also operates on a more metaphorical level as a transferal. With this exchange Bolingbroke comments, "Part of your cares you give me with your crown" (194). On the one hand "cares" could simply mean the responsibilities that Bolingbroke would have to honour as the new king of England, but there is also a less administrative tone to this comment, as this marks his realisation that with this crown comes Richard's very essence. The titles passage shows Richard in a state if confusion due to the identity crisis that has been sparked from this deposition, as once questioned about his resignation of the crown Richard replies with a confused series of negations: "Ay, no. No, ay," and "Therefore no 'no', for I resign to thee". Richard is evidently struggling in his release of the crown, as his double negative is not a refusal to resign, but such awkward lexis portrays the extent of his turmoil; this is an unnatural process for Richard because he has been designated the natural king from birth. Thus the property of the crown encompasses more than ownership of land, or the possession of a stage prop, as it symbolises the inherent property of kingship through a bloodline. This deposition represents the complete breakdown of Richard because it involves the stripping-away of his blood property, something that has defined his entire existence. It is from such analysis that we realise the true emotional resonance of the "heavy weight" (204) of the crown. With the repeated refrain, "With mine own" Shakespeare enacts a complete dissection and deconstruction of Richard when conflating it with his own physical 'properties':

With mine own tears I wash away my balm, With mine own hands I give away my crown, With mine own tongue deny my sacred state, With mine own breath release all duty's rites. (207-210).

The repetition of "mine own" frames this ironic fight for possession that Richard asserts amidst of his ultimate dispossession. He is first reinforcing the existence of his physical self, only to describe how this self is destroying his other identity; that of his crown, state, and duty, thereby transforming him into a hollow vessel bereft of essence and purpose through the loss of his crown. Richard is therefore in the throws of "an antick disposition" (Hamlet 1.5.172) similar to that experienced by Hamlet, who finds himself in a strikingly similar situation to Richard at the beginning of the play. In Hamlet without Hamlet (2007) Margreta de Grazia dismisses the propensity of modern criticism to attribute the majority of Hamlet's conflict to a deep introspective instability in favour of an assertion that his turmoil is bred from the simple fact that "Hamlet is dispossessed" (p.1). Whilst there is certainly a strong case to argue that much of the play's conflict comes from Hamlet's insecurities as a revenge hero in remembering his usurped father, de Grazia highlights the somewhat Presentist stance of this interpretation, and argues for the more Historicist theory that dictates that Hamlet's desire for revenge stems from Claudius' usurpation of the throne from its rightful blood inheritor. De Grazia states that Hamlet's obsession over his rightful realm "does more than give substance to his state of dejection at the play's start: it knits him into the fabric of the play" (p.2). This argument gains strength when comparing Hamlet's situation with that of Richard, as it allows us to see how Shakespeare regarded kingship as an all-encompassing property for his characters. It is easy for us to agree with de Grazia's line of argument when faced with Richard's laments:

Long may'st thou live in Richard's seat to sit, And soon lie Richard in an earthly pit! (218-19).

Richard is still preoccupied with the divine certainty of his right to rule, asserting that the throne is still his property whilst recognising the malignant effects on his own person that the denial of such a right will produce; he is simply stating that the end of his kingship will signify the end of his life, thereby representing a complete destruction of identity through the dispossession of property. In his essay 'The dramatic life of objects in the early modern theatre', Douglas Bruster writes, "sometimes the link between character and prop is so strong that certain objects can gesture toward a drama, character, and scene" (p.67). From this statement he uses such famous examples as Hamlet holding a skull, but what this highlights is the significant interaction between play and prop that runs through all of Shakespeare's plays, and which I have previously touched upon. Once again the metatheatrical significance of 'property' becomes apparent through the presence of the mirror in Richard's deposition scene, as it clearly exposes the dialogue between property and identity. As part of Richard's identity crisis his own conception of his appearance fails him on the loss of his crown:

Let it command a mirror hither straight, That it may show me what a face I have, Since it is bankrupt of his majesty. (267-68).

As a token of identity the mirror is perhaps the most obvious property to use, as it is a physical representation of the scrutinising of identity. Richard has even begun to feel disenfranchised from his own face, prompting the appearance on stage of this prop that, through the reflection, creates another Richard on the stage. The scene has progressed from Richard facing his crown as it is held in the hand of another man to facing his own reflection, eventually prompting the stage direction, "Dashes the glass against the ground" and ending with his statement, "my sorrow hath destroy'd my face" (292). To Richard his kingship means everything, not just land and material objects, but his own being, as his bloodline has dictated that he was born onto the thrown. The interplay between property through language - with the mentioning of "state", "crown" and "resign" - and through physical representation - with the crown and the mirror - demonstrates how Shakespeare was aware of land and property as a connecting force between many facets of his drama that encompass everything from the physical action on the stage to his characters' emotional drama. In a similar vein, King Lear presents a king who slowly unravels through the misappropriation and abuse of his property. The opening scene marks the locus of all the ensuing chaos that comes from Lear's foolish misunderstanding of the various physical and abstract forms that property can take. What this play also focuses on, which is sidelined in Richard II, is a spatial awareness of the land that is being discussed, as gleaned from the presence of a map: "Give me the map there" (1.1.40). Lear is keen to comprehend the actual, physical process involved in dividing his kingdom. Martin Brückner and Kirsten Poole highlight this focus on real space by suggesting that "audiences are trained to read, write, and imagine text as a mappable, structured space" (p.630), as it aids our understanding of what is at stake and gives us a sense of the magnitude of the chaos that follows and its implications. Indeed, the presence of the map underscores the importance of physical property throughout the scene, and even some performances of the play have included the literal division of segments of earth on the stage to show a physical representation of the division of a kingdom. Lear proclaims that he is giving his kingdom to his daughters

that future strife May be prevented now, (47-8)

which eventually becomes an ironic statement considering Goneril and Regan's selfish misuse of power, and asks for their protestations of love as a means of deducing their worthiness to reign. Goneril begins with, "Sir, I love you more than words can wield matter" (58). Her statement aptly embodies the tone of platitudinous nonsense that both Goneril and Regan speak as a means of appeasing the ego of their father in return for land, as her statement is a complete contradiction. It is impossible for words to wield matter, just as it is impossible to decide whether someone should rule a kingdom through protestations of love. Shakespeare's words aim to give us a spatial awareness, and see them replicated on stage as mappable space, but ultimately words are abstract tools, and the boundless love of Goneril and Regan is something so abstract that it cannot be physically qualified. Lear is here foolishly relying on abstract platitudes, and not on something that has real 'properties'. Cordelia, on the other hand, states,

I love your majesty According to my bond; nor more, nor less (95-6).

Cordelia is being level headed and honest in her terms. She does not pretend to employ words that can wield matter, rather she uses legal rhetoric pertaining to property with such words as "bond", being careful to make statements that are realistic and can be qualified. Lear shows himself to be a bad ruler in his disregard for Cordelia's sensible understanding of property, as he is enamoured with the abstract, and as a result he uses Cordelia's rhetoric against her. When disinheriting her he states,

Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood. (106-7).

This once again marks an instance where Shakespeare recognises how the meaning of 'property' is constantly in flux. With such technical terms as "disclaim", "paternal care", "propinquity" and "property" this passage sounds like more of a judicial sentence; his word - as the word of a king - is legally binding. Similarly to 'property', 'propinquity' also has a variety of meanings, as it can either pertain to a closeness in blood or in space. Once again we therefore see dialogue between physical space, with the measuring of land and distance, and blood, the inner essence of a person. Lear is hereby decreeing that there is no longer to be any closeness between Cordelia and himself - as she is to be exiled - along with the renunciation of her birthright. Lear is therefore attempting to disinherit Cordelia in every possible sense, aiming to signal a complete breakdown as it does fro Richard II, but in this play Shakespeare demolishes the disinheritor rather than the disinherited, as Cordelia leaves to amass a French army and Lear goes slowly insane. Both plays therefore portray a monarch interacting with 'property' in all of its forms. Kingship necessarily involves working with land and property, as a monarch is a figure of supreme, divine authority. Being a king is never merely about wearing crown or protecting the land, it is about existing in a certain position, and with Richard II we can see what happens when that position is taken away. Also in Lear does Shakespeare recognise the importance of the crown to the rightful king's existence, as once Lear asserts his intention to give away his kingdom he states that all is left to do is to "crawl toward death" (44). In both a metatheatrical and emotional sense Shakespeare shows how a royal birthright can define the totality of a person, as Richard's insecurities on resigning the crown bleed into his conception of his own physical self, leading to his violent struggle to recognise himself in the mirror. In Lear this link between the physical and the emotional is explored further, as Lear proves himself to be a bad king by placing more significance in the ridiculous, abstract qualifications of love over the honest practicality of Cordelia, who is keenly aware of the property of love, and how it 'bonds' her to her father. What stays prevalent through both of these plays is the dialogue between property in all of its forms and the identity of the characters with which it interacts.