Interpretation, Vol 33-1

7/28/2019 Interpretation, Vol 33-1

1/110

Volume 33 Issue 1

A JOURNALOFPOLITICALPHILOSOPHY

3

19

45

93

105

Fall/Winter 2005

David Azerrad The Two Ways: Egypt and Israelin the Torah

Avery Plaw Prince Harry: Shakespeares Critique ofMachiavelli

Dennis Teti The Unbloody Sacrifice: The CatholicTheology of ShakespearesMerchantof Venice

David Janssens A Change of Orientation: Leo Strausss

Comments on Carl Schmitt Revisited

Book Review:

David Lewis Schaefer Leo Strauss and His Legacy: A Bibliographyedited by John A. Murley


2/110


Editor-in-Chief Hilail Gildin, Dept. of Philosophy, Queens College

Associate Editors Erik Dempsey

Stephen Eide

General Editors Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Leonard Grey

General Editors (Late) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Robert Horwitz (d. 1978)

Seth G. Benardete (d. 2001)

Consulting Editors Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal

Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield Ellis Sandoz Kenneth W.

Thompson

Consulting Editors (Late) Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael

Oakeshott (d. 1990) John Hallowell (d. 1992) Ernest L. Fortin (d. 2002)

International Editors Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier

Editors Wayne Ambler

Maurice Auerbach

Robert Bartlett

Fred Baumann

Eric Buzzetti Susan Collins Patrick Coby Elizabeth Cde Baca Eastman

Thomas S. Engeman Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Pamela K.

Jensen Ken Masugi Carol L. McNamara Will Morrisey Amy Nendza

Susan Orr Michael Palmer Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan

Meld Shell Devin Stauffer Bradford P. Wilson Cameron Wybrow

Martin D. Yaffe Michael P. Zuckert Catherine H. Zuckert

Copy Editor Thomas Schneider

Designer Wendy Coy

Subscriptions Subscription rates per volume (3 issues):

Individuals $29

Libraries and all other institutions $48

Students (four-year limit) $18

Single copies available.

Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located

within the U.S.A. (or the U. S. Postal Service).

Inquiries Mrs. Mary Contos, Assistant to the Editor

Interpretation, Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367-1597, U.S.A.

(718) 997-5542 Fax: (718) 997-5565

email [email protected]

Printed by Sheridan Press, Hanover, PA, U.S.A.

www.interpretationjournal.com


3/110

Volume 33 Issue 1


3

19

45

93

105

Fall/Winter 2005

David Azerrad The Two Ways: Egypt and Israelin the Torah

Avery Plaw Prince Harry: Shakespeares Critique ofMachiavelli

Dennis Teti The Unbloody Sacrifice: The CatholicTheology of ShakespearesMerchantof Venice

David Janssens A Change of Orientation: Leo StrausssComments on Carl Schmitt Revisited

Book Review:

David Lewis Schaefer Leo Strauss and His Legacy: A Bibliographyedited by John A. Murley

2006 Interpretation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of the contents may be

reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0020-9635


4/110

I N S T R U C T I O N S F O R C O N T R I B U T O R S

The journal welcomes manuscripts in political philosophy

in the broad sense. Submitted articles can be interpretations of literary works,

theological works, and writings on jurisprudence with an important bearing on

political philosophy.

Contributors should followThe Chicago Manual of Style

(15th Edition). Instead of footnotes or endnotes, the journal has adopted the

Author-Date system of documentation described in this manual and illustrated

in the present issue of the journal. The Chicago Manual of Style offers publica-

tions the choice between sentence-style references to titles of works or articles

and headline-style references to them. INTERPRETATION uses the headline

style. Parenthetical references no longer use p, pp., cf., see, f., ff. or the

like. The year of publication follows the authors name in the list of References.

As implemented byINTERPRETATION , the Author-Date system requires titlesof books and articles in a list of References always to be followed by a period

rather than a comma.

Words from languages not rooted in Latin should be

transliterated to English. Foreign expressions which have not become part of

English should be accompanied by translation into English.

To insure impartial judgment, contributors should omit

mention of their other publications and put, on the title page only, their name,any affiliation desired, address with postal zip code in full, email address, and

telephone number.

Please send one copy in Word or Rich Text Format as an

attachment to an email message to [email protected].

It is particularly important for the journal to have the

present email addresses of authors submitting articles.


5/110

The Two Ways: Egypt and Israel in the Torah

D A V I D A Z E R R A D

UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS

[email protected]

For you shall know that God will have differentiated betweenEgypt and Israel. (Ex. 11: 7)

In the late nineteenth century, German and French scholars,

emboldened by important discoveries in the emerging field of Egyptology,

returned to the Bible to reconsider its depiction of Egypt. Their conclusions,not surprisingly perhaps, were quite critical of the biblical portrayal. A few

decades later, by the time Flinders Petries Egypt and Israel(1911) and T. Eric

Peets Egypt and the Old Testament(1924) reached the English-speaking public,

a growing number of scholars viewed the biblical account as historically

inaccurate. Such criticism, whether true or not, ultimately rests on a flawed

understanding of the aims of the Hebrew Bible in general, and of the

Pentateuch in particular. All too often, biblical scholars misconstrue the

Pentateuch as a history of the formation of the Jewish people. Thus, accordingto F. V. Greifenhagen, what we have in the Pentateuch is an account of

ethnogenesis: the emergence of biblical Israel as a self-conscious people or

ethnic group (2003, 9).

Ultimately of course, the Pentateuch is much more than an

ethnogenesis. While the five books of Moses do indeed retrace the history of

what would become the Jewish people, they constitute first and foremost the

guide of how these people are to live. The Pentateuch is a Toraha teaching.

The word Torah itself traces its etymology to the verb to teach (le-horot; Lev.10:11).From the perspective of the biblical author, it is in fact the teaching.The

Torah sets forth a comprehensive teaching which Robert Sacks most aptly calls

theNew Way(1990). If the Children of Israel are to follow this New Way, and

3The Two Ways: Egypt and Israel in the Torah

2006 Interpretation, Inc.


6/110

more importantly, understand it, the biblical author must not only clearly

present it, but also vividly contrast it to another way antithetical to its own

principles. In the Torah, Egypt comes to symbolize the fundamental alternative

to the New Way. Egypt is not simply, as Thomas Pangle argues, the worst

regime (1995, 71) but rather the regime compared to which the apolitical New

Way subordinated to God reveals its fundamentally different nature. Egypt is

the Other Way.

If as Eric Voegelin suggests, the truth of the symbol is not

informative; it is evocative (1990, 344), Egypt will ultimately encompass much

more than a land, a people or even a nation. Thus, while rooted in the land of

the Nile, it must nevertheless remain a vague, undefined place. The Pharaohsare never named and no Egyptian cities, with the exception of Pithom and

Ramses, are ever identified.As for Goshen, the area where the Israelites dwelled

while in Egypt, it eludes specification (Greifenhagen 2003, 44) and may have

been fabricated by the biblical author. In the Torah, Egypt is somewhere

perhaps everywherebeyond Canaan. It symbolizes any attempt by man to

live according to his own laws. Egypt ultimately represents the innate human

longing to recreate, through mans efforts alone, an Eden sheltered from

necessity. Egyptian anthropocentrism therefore cannot accommodate any

gods, much less YHWH, the God of Israel. Egypt can worship no God but the

God-king Pharaoh. Thus one always goes down (la-redet) into Egypt and

ascends out of it (la-alot). By exalting man, Egypt is imbued with a magnetic

quality to which the Israelites, like all other humans, are always drawn. Egypt

and its ways are always looming. Since the New Way of the Torah cannot

eradicate the other, older Egyptian way, it must attempt to create a realm insu-

lated from the ways of the Egyptian, knowing that Egypt lurks within every

man. Egypt and Israel must somehow coexist in tension with each other. For

every Moses born in Egypt but raised out of it, there is a Joseph born in the

Holy Land but incorporated into Egypt.

In its broadest outlines, the Torah presents the New Ways

triumph over the older Egyptian Other Way. In the beginning, before the New

Way, Egypt is already well established and prosperous. When a famine plagues

the Land of the New Way, Abram turns to Egypt and emerges wealthy. While

Abrams journey to Egypt does not even give God the opportunity to assert his

Providence, it does prove Egypts ability to provide for man. Faced withanother famine, aside from the first famine that was in the days of Abraham

(Gen. 26:1), Isaac is specifically forbidden by God to go down to Egypt. God

makes Isaac prosper nonetheless, proving that the New Way too can provide

4 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n


7/110

for man. The stage is now set for a confrontation between the two ways. The

stories of Abraham and Isaac do not prove the superiority of the way of God

to that of the Egyptians. To firmly establish the New Way, the Other Way

must first lose its appeal in the eyes of the Israelites. The Children of Israel will

therefore dwell in Egypt for more than two centuries and experience firsthand

the yoke of its tyranny. God will then crush the Egyptians with a mighty

hand (Deut. 5:15) and return Pharaoh and his legion to the primordial waters.

The Children of Israel will thus be ready to receive the New Way. The ways of

Egypt will however far outlast Egypt itself. No sooner have the Israelites left the

house of bondage, do they already long for the comforts it once brought. The

New Way will still have to contend with the peoples Egyptian longings. Thus,

in this regard, the Torah is as much about the Egyptian Other Way which Godso vehemently rejects, as it is about Israel and the New Way (see Addendum 1).

THE SONS OF HAM : CUSH, EGYPT, PUT AND CANAAN.

Egypt first appears in the genealogies of Noahs sons, well

before Abraham, the founder of the New Way, is even born. From the outset,

Egypt is set apart from the genealogy of the Chosen people. In fact, Egypt

(mitsrayim) is tied to the lineage of the impudent small son Ham (Gen. 9:24)

whose descendants will be in direct conflict with the Children of Israel andthe New Way. While Put sinks into total obscurityhis sons are not even

mentionedCush will give rise to Nimrod, a mighty hunter, who founds the

first kingdom and the first great city. Nimrods kingdom begins in Babel

(bavel), which in Hebrew designates both Babel, whose inhabitants will later

attempt to reach the heavens with their tower, and Babylonia, whose king will

one day burn the Temple, destroy the Kingdom of Judah and send the Israelites

into exile (II Kings 25:8-11). The connection between Egypt and Babel is more

than just familial. In the Torah, bricks (levenim) and mortar (h_omer) are onlyfound in Babel (Gen. 11:3) and Egypt (Ex. 1:14). Common to both the Tower

of Babel and the Egyptian Pharaonic state is a hubristic attempt to dethrone

God As for Mitsrayims accursed younger brother Canaan, he begets many of

the people who will later inhabit the Holy Land and whom God will order the

Israelites to exterminate. Mitsrayim himself begets seven sons. Although they

will all disappear into anonymity, their progeny, the Philistines, will be a thorn

in the side of Israel from the moment they settle in the Holy Land. Israels

southern border with the idol-worshiping Philistines will never be quiet.Egypt, it would seem, is always lurking. Even after the Children of Israel are

finally liberated from Egypt, they will be plagued by the Children of Egypt. We

should however be careful not to indict Egypt on the basis of the actions of its



8/110

siblings or its grandchildren. From the outset, the stories in the Bible make it

clear that good and bad brothers can come from the same seed (Cain and Abel,

Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau). Furthermore, as Deuteronomy warns:

Fathers will not be put to death because of sons, nor sons for their fathers

each man will die for his own sin (24:16).

THERE WAS A FAMINE IN THE LAND AND

ABRAM WENT DOWN TO EGYPT.

The story of Israel proper begins with Gods call to Abram

Go forth for yourself (Gen. 12:1). Gods call is immediately followed by a

promise to make Abram a great nation and to make his name great (ve-agdalah

shmekha). Unlike the men of Babel who sought to make a name for themselves

through their own efforts alone (Gen. 11:4), God, under the New Way, will

make a name for Abram and his descendants. The juxtaposition of the stories

of the Tower of Babel and Abrams call highlights the contrast between the

ways of men and the New Way. Nowhere else in the Torah is the word name

(shem) used in such a way.

After Abram leaves behind his land, relatives and fathers

house, he goes to Canaan, to the land God shows him (Gen. 12:1). Once there,however, Canaan is struck by famine, a famine which weighed heavily on the

land (Gen 12:10). The heavy famine threatens Abram and his family and calls

into question the providence of the mysterious, hitherto-unknown YHWH

who appeared in Haran. Abram, who cannot yet know much of the New Way,

takes matters into his own hands and descends to Egypt. Egypt is not even said

to be a land of plenty spared by the famine. In trying times, it seems that the

natural instinct is to turn to Egypt. But why Egypt and not some other land?

Egypt, as the Bible tells us and as was known throughout theancient world, is well-watered everywhere (Gen. 13:10; cf. Herodotus,

Histories, 2.13-14). In this regard, it is even compared to the garden of God

where Adam first dwelt (ibid.). Egypt does not depend on rainfall to grow its

crops and feed its people. The inundations of the Nile, coupled with artificial

irrigation, ensure that it has an abundant supply of food year round. As such,

Egypt, unlike other lands, is sheltered from necessity. As the text emphasizes in

the structure of the following sentence, Egypt is surrounded by famine: And

there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to sojournthere for the famine weighed heavily on the land (Gen. 12:10, emphasis

added). Egypt will only be threatened by famine once, when God, intervening

in human affairs, decides to send one.As Joseph explains to Pharaoh concerning



9/110

his dreams, what God is about to do, he has told Pharaoh (Gen. 41:25) and

he is nowhastening to bring it about (Gen. 41:32). Nature cannot harm

Egypt. Only God can attempt to do so. Yet he too must contend with

Egyptian hubris which knows no God. Threatened with a divine famine, the

Egyptian response is to put into place measures that will insulate the land

from the effects of the food shortage. Egypt has gained such mastery over its

environment that it can even thwart Gods plans. The modern project

to conquer nature, still very much alive today, had thus already been adum-

brated in the biblical authors Egypt.

Egypt is indeed like no other land. As God will later announce

to the Israelites in the desert: The land to which you are coming to possess it,it is not like the land of Egypt that you left, where you would sow your seed and

water it by foot like a vegetable garden (Deut. 11:10; Zech. 14:18). The

Egyptians have mastered an already hospitable environment to such an extent

that they have recreated an Edenic state of abundance. Egypt thus constitutes

an affront to God who, after banishing Adam and Eve from Eden, stations

the Cherubim and the revolving flaming sword to prevent anyone from ever

entering it again. Egypt has not only managed to re-enter Eden,but also to taste

the Tree of Life and regain immortality. Underlying the typically Egyptian

practice of embalming, highlighted in the deaths of both Jacob (Gen.50:2) and

Joseph (Gen. 50:26), is a belief that the body lives eternally. Embalming is

contrary to Gods way for Adam had already been told that he would return

to the earth from which he was taken: for dust you are and to dust you

will return (Gen. 3:19).

If God expelled man from Eden lest he stretch his hand

and take also from the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22) and truly become a divine

creature, then the Egyptians are somewhat like God. Being gods themselves,the Egyptians need no gods, much less a demanding God like YHWH.

Nowhere in the Pentateuch, not even when the land is smitten by the

plagues, are the Egyptians shown invoking their gods or praying. When

the Egyptianized Joseph threatens his brothers, he swears twice by the life

of Pharaoh (Gen. 42:15-6).

Since Egyptian see themselves as immortal, they lack an

awareness of the dimension of reality called time. Egypt is timeless. The baker,

the cupbearer and Pharaoh all fail to see the images in their dreams as eventsunfolding in time (Sacks 1990, 348). In the most profound sense, Egypt is time-

less not only because, being sheltered from necessity, it does not grasp time, but

because it is eternal. Egypt exists at all times. Egypt, as we will soon discover, is



10/110

not just a contingent historical nation bound to disappear one day, but also an

innate human longing for autonomy and mastery.

DO NOT DESCEND I NTO EGYPT.

Abram thus descends into Egypt where he acquires great

wealth. Whereas he came to Canaan with all the possessions he possessed and

the souls they made (Gen. 12:5), he leaves Egypt very laden with livestock,

silver and gold (Gen. 13:2; 12:16). Lot and Abram have in fact grown so rich

that the land can no longer support them living together. Egypt, upon first

encounter, appears to be a place of refuge in difficult times where one can grow

immensely rich. The story does cast a doubt on the Egyptian treatment of

foreign women (Gen. 12:14-15), but the reader cannot necessarily concludethat Pharaoh would have taken Sarai had he known she was married. In spite

of this incident, Egypt not only allows Abram to survive the famine but also

makes him a wealthy man. If the unknown YHWH hopes to supplant the

Egyptian Way with his New Way he will have to prove that he too can provide

for man.

Many years later, Abrahams son finds himself in a similar

situation. With the land of Canaan in the grips of another famine, Isaac heads

south (toward Egypt) to Gerar in the land of the Philistines.While the text does

not say that Isaacs ultimate destination is Egypt, such an assumption appears

warranted. How else are we to explain Gods specific prohibitionDo not

descend into Egypt (Gen. 26:2)? Furthermore, it would not be the first

repetition of an Abrahamic episode in the life of Isaac (e.g. Gen. 26:6-11). Like

his father who obeyed the divine commandment to go forth, Isaac complies

with the order to stay put. Under the care of God, Isaac not only survives the

famine, but acquires formidable wealth:

And Isaac sowed in that land and in that year he reaped a hundred-

fold, and YHWH blessed him. The man became great and he grew

constantly greater until he had grown very great. He had acquired

flocks and herds and many servants; and the Philistines envied him.

(Gen. 26:12-14)

God has replaced Egypt. In fact, the texts marked emphasis on Isaacs greatness

(godel) implies that God has surpassed Egypt. The similarities of the two

famine episodes (famine, Egypt / God, wealth) invite the reader to compare theNew Way under God to the older Egyptian Way. The New Way proves to be

able, not only to provide for the Children of Israel, but also to bring riches and

eminence, just as Egypt did.



11/110

AND WE WILL BE SLAVES TO PHARAOH.

The narrative in Genesis has so far unfolded in Mesopotamia

and Canaan. At the time of Jacobs return to the land of his fathers sojourn-ings (Gen. 37:1), Egypt is still a faraway place, a land of plenty to which one

turns in times of famine. After Jacobs sons sell their brother Joseph to the

Midianite traders, the story moves from Canaan to Egypt where the Israelites

will dwell for more than two centuries. The change of setting now gives the

biblical author an opportunity to disclose in greater depth the nature of Egypt.

Egypt reveals herself to be the land of Pharaoh in the strictest sense of the term.

While the Egyptian monarch does not necessarily appear in every scene, the

whole of Egypt lives under the shadows cast by his sun.We first encounter Pharaoh celebrating his birthday.Nowhere

else in the entire Hebrew Bible is a birthday celebrated. By highlighting this

oddity, the author draws our attention to the cult of Pharaoh in Egypt. For

what is a birthday but a celebration of the birth of a particular human being, of

his entry into the world? The text, perhaps out of piety, stops short of exposing

the Egyptian belief in the divinity of the Pharaoh. While the Babelians sought

to build a tower to reach the heavens, the Egyptians have elevated one among

themselves to heavenly status. The god-king thus appropriates certain powersotherwise reserved for God throughout the Bible. After appointing Joseph to

rule over the land of Egypt, Pharaoh renames him Tsaphenat-Paneah. Given

the importance and significance of names in the Torah, name changes, with

this particular exception, are the exclusive prerogative of God.

On his birthday, Pharaoh makes a feast for all his avadim.

From Genesis 39 onwards, the text seems to play on the dual meaning of

avadim which can either mean servants (as in Gen. 43:28, cf. 32:5) or, more

probably, slaves (as in Gen. 47:19, cf. 12:16). The Torah seems to imply that in

Egypt all are slaves to Pharaoh. Slaves, both male and female (shfah_ot), were

first encountered in the Bible during Abrahams earlier sojourn in Egypt (Gen.

12:16). Later, as Egypt feels the worst pangs of the famine, the people offer

Joseph to buy us and our land for bread and we and our land will become

slaves to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:19). The preceding sentence however, only

concludes that the land became Pharaohs (Gen. 47:20), thereby implying

that Pharaoh already owned the people. Egypt, as God will so often later tell his

own people in the desert, is a house of slavery (Deut. 5:6; see Addendum 2).

Although Pharaohs rule is absolute, he is still free to exercise

his despotic power benevolently or tyrannically. The Pharaoh in power in



12/110

Genesis is good to both Joseph and his large family. Yet even when a good

Pharaoh sits on the throne,his Egyptian nature shines through.When Pharaoh

hears the news that Joseph has been reunited with his brothers, he immediately

invites the rest of the family to come stay in Egypt: I will give you the best of

the land and you will eat of the fat of the land (Gen. 45:18). Tied to the gener-

ous invitation is a command (Gen. 45:19). Jacob and his family must leave

behind their belongings as Pharaoh will provide for them. While we already

knew from Abrahams first sojourn that one may leave Egypt wealthy,

Pharaohs words now reveal that one may not enter it with wealth. In Egypt, all

flows from Pharaoh. The land of Egypt, which belongs to Pharaoh who may

thus apportion it as he pleases, will feed the Children of Israel. Jacob, the torch-

bearer of the New Way, understands the implications of Pharaohs command.Disregarding the Pharaonic order, he sets out with all that he has (Gen. 46:1).

More importantly, before setting out, he offers sacrifices to the God of his

father Isaac (Gen. 46:1). Jacob must know that YHWH forbids going down

into Egypt. He thus presents offerings and obtains divine approval before

heading out.

TELL MY FATHER OF ALL MY GLORY IN EGYPT.

Any examination of the role of Egypt in the Torah mustultimately confront the troubling Egyptianization of Joseph. From the

moment he leaves the prison, Joseph, who had been raised by the great

patriarch Jacob, gradually takes on the ways of the Egyptians. He learns the

language (Gen. 42:23), wears Egyptian clothes, takes on an Egyptian name

and even shaves (Gen. 41:14)a most un-Israelite practice, as no other

Israelite in the entire Hebrew Bible ever shaves. When his father dies, he has

him embalmed by Egyptian physicians. Joseph even becomes Pharaohs

Viceroy and marries an Egyptian woman, the daughter of a high priest. His

reforms allow Egypt to avert the famine and Pharaoh to consolidate his iron

grip over the land, thereby creating the conditions that will allow the next

Pharaoh to enslave the Children of Israel. Jewish commentators, who have

traditionally been quite sympathetic to Joseph, skirt the issue, focusing instead

on his righteousness among the decadent Egyptians. Even such a thoughtful

commentator as Sacks who draws attention to Josephs gradual Egyptianiza-

tion, does not make much of it.

Josephs Egyptianization culminates in the Pharaohnesquespeech where he reveals his true identity to his brothers. Whereas Joseph

begins his monologue in a humble way, stressing the role of God in his rags to

riches story, God gradually gives way to Joseph. Pharaohs Viceroy ends by

1 0 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n


13/110

announcing to his brother I will nourish you (Gen. 45:11, cf. Gen 47:12)

and orders them to Tell my father of all my glory in Egypt (Gen. 45:13). By

portraying himself as a provider, Joseph anticipates Pharaohs speech,

discussed above. Most disturbing are Josephs last words. Nowhere else in the

entire Torah is the word glory (kavod) applied to a human in such a way. In the

vast majority of cases, glory is in fact reserved for God (e.g. Ex. 14:4). Josephs

final words capture the essence of Egypt. In Egypt, God disappears and gives

way to man in all his glory. Thus, Joseph never speaks of YHWH, only of

Elohim, which can either designate YHWH or be a generic name for any

god. Joseph, in a sense, becomes a Pharaoh. Judass words to his brother should

perhaps then be taken literally: you are like Pharaoh (Gen. 44:18).

The story of Joseph thus not only allows the biblical author to

expose the true nature of the land of Egypt, but also, through Josephs gradual

Egyptianization, to further differentiate the symbol of Egypt. Josephs turn to

Egypt reveals that behind Egypt lies a human longing, present also within the

Children of Israel, to bring reality under mans control and, in doing so, to

divinize man. Egypt, it turns out, is not just a faraway land which does not

know God, but the desire, already evident in the story of Babel, to replace God.

The biblical author uses the story of Joseph to warn his readers that if Jacobs

favorite son succumbed to the ways of Egypt, so could any Israelite.

In the end, Joseph does seem to break with the ways of Egypt.

Before dying he asks his brothers to carry his remnants out with them the day

Israel leaves Egypt. Yet unlike his father Jacob who insisted that he not be

buried in Egypt and be transported to the tomb of his fathers upon his death,

Joseph does not seem ready to part with Egypt immediately. His bones will

remain in Egypt many more years.

AND EGY PT W IL L KNOW THAT I AM YHWH.

The death of Joseph brings the scroll of Genesis to a close. The

Children of Israel, like their forefather Abraham before them, have come to

Egypt fleeing famine in the land of Canaan.Unlike Abraham however, they stay

well past the end of the famine. Although the text of Genesis contains many

hints that the Egyptian Way is an affront to God, it still retains all its appeal for

the Children of Israel. Egypt remains the land of opulence sheltered from

necessity. To prepare the Israelites for the Exodus, God must now expose thetrue Egypt, the House of Bondage. The scroll of Exodus opens with the rise to

the throne of a new Pharaoh, who did not know Joseph (Ex. 1:8). Unlike his

predecessor who treated Israels family generously, the new tyrannical Pharaoh

1 1The Two Ways: Egypt and Israel in the Torah


14/110

enslaves the Hebrews. Fearing for the demographic stability of the kingdom,

Pharaoh does not hesitate to demand the murder of all Hebrew male

newborns and, when this measure fails, ofallmale newborns. With a word,

Pharaoh can command his entire people (Ex. 1:22), even to sacrifice their

own children, since everything in Egypt ultimately comes from Pharaoh. The

land of plenty has become the land of oppression and death. Similarly, when

Pharaoh hears that Moses has killed a man, he orders that he be put to death,

without even verifying the charges (Ex. 2:15).

To lead the people out of Egypt, God chooses Moses, an

Israelite born in Egypt, raised in the house of Pharaoh and even given an

Egyptian name (Moshe means son in the Egyptian language; it is also foundin the names of certain Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty, including Ka-moshe,

Ach-moshe and Toth-moshe).Although Moses surely knows of his origins and

identifies with his peoplehe goes out to his brethren (Ex. 2:11)he is

called an Egyptian man by the daughters of the Midianite priest (Ex. 2:19).

If the story of Joseph revealed how an Israelite raised by one of the patriarchs

could succumb to the ways of Egypt, the rise of Moses will show how an

Israelite raised in the opulence of Egypt can resist its lures and follow God.

While the text remains silent on Moses upbringing and childhood, the reader

can easily speculate about what it must have been like to grow up in the House

of Pharaoh, under the care of his daughter

When God first appears in the burning bush, Moses, who has

not only never seen this God before but never even heard his name (Ex. 3:13),

still answers his call by saying Here I am (Ex. 3:4, cf. Gen. 22:1, 31:11). When

Pharaoh, on the other hand, first hears of YHWH, he offers the paradigmatic

Egyptian reply:Who is YHWH that I should hearken to his voice and send out

Israel? I do not know YHWH(Ex. 5:2, emphasis added). Confronted with thehitherto unknown God YHWH, Moses piously steps forth, like Abraham

before him, while Pharaoh, with characteristic Egyptian hubris, denies any

knowledge of God.

The stage is now set for a confrontation between the dormant

New Way and the Egyptian Other Way. The Israelites cannot simply leave

Egypt. The land of Pharaoh must be humiliatedyou will tell your son how I

ridiculed Egypt (Ex. 10:2)and brought to its knees for the New Way to

prove its superiority over the Other Way. Not only will the New Way emergevictorious, but Egypt itselfwill know that I am YHWH (Ex. 7:5, cf. 9:15, 9:16,

11:7). Israel too must rediscover YHWH after so many years in Egypt.

Maimonides, citing Exodus Rabbah, even remarks that the Israelites had



15/110

abandoned the distinctive mark of the covenant and stopped circumcising

their sons while in Egypt with a view to assimilating themselves to the

Egyptians (1963, III:46, 585). Lastly, the spectacular exit from Egypt will also

reveal the glory of God. As God instructs Moses to tell the Children of Israel,

you will know that I am YHWH your God (Ex. 6:8).

AS YOU HAVE SEEN EG YPT TODAY YOU WIL L

NEV ER AGAI N S EE TH EM F OR E TE RN ITY.

God thus brings ten plagues against Egypt, hardening

Pharaohs heart each time, until he finally surrenders. Much has been written

about the significance of the plagues (Currid 1997, 105-20), but it should be

noted that the final plague is strangely reminiscent of Pharaohs earlier decree.Whereas Pharaoh had ordered all Israelites male newborns to be put to death,

God kills all Egyptian firstborns. The New Way is, in many regards, the mirror

opposite of the Other Way. Both ways subordinate everything to the One: God

in Israel, Pharaoh in Egypt. Under both ways, the land cannot be owned by an

individual. In Egypt it belongs to the Pharaoh (Gen. 47:20), while in the Holy

Land it belongs to GodThe land you will not sell permanently, for the land

is Mine. For you are sojourners and settlers in my midst (Lev. 25:23). Even

when the Other Way and the New Way appear to agree, important differencesremain. Both ways, on the surface, seem to be open for all to follow. In Egypt,

a lowly Hebrew slave can become Viceroy. Under the New Way, as God

insists throughout Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, you must love the

proselyte [ger] like yourself (Lev. 19:34). In Egypt, not much is asked of the

newcomera shave, a change of clothes and a new namebut he must

remain forever separate, no matter how high his position. Even Tsaphenath

Paneah, married to the daughter of the Priest of On, must eat alone for the

Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for it was an abomination tothe Egyptians (Gen. 43:32). Under the New Way, on the other hand, the

proselyte becomes an integral part of the community but the commitment to

the law is total.

As the Israelites leave Egypt in great haste, they fulfill Gods

word who had earlier instructed them to empty out [venitsaltem] Egypt

(Ex. 3:22). They leave with silver vessels, gold vessels and garments taken from

the Egyptians (Ex. 12:36). By pointing out that in taking these vessels and

garments, the Israelites emptied out Egypt, the biblical author seems to suggestthat Egypt does not amount to much more than an accumulation of material

possessions.



16/110

On their way out of Egypt, the Israelites come before the Sea

of Reeds where Moses announces:As you have seen Egypt today you will never

again see them for eternity (Ex. 14:13). For Moses, God has exposed the true

Egypt and shattered its image as an Edenic state of plenty. For pious men like

Moses, Egypt is no more. Indeed, Pharaoh, the embodiment of Egypt, and his

entire army are swallowed by the water (mayim) while the Israelites safely go

on dry land (yabasha). The contrast between water and dry land evokes the act

of separations through which God created the world in Genesis 1, where the

verb to separate (lehavdil) appears five times (Gen. 1:4, 6, 7, 14, 18). Whereas

the New Way seeks to uphold the distinctions created by these separations, as is

evident for example in the dietary laws (Kass 1994), Egypt denies them, for

example by blurring the distinction between the human and animal kingdoms(Sacks 1990, 394). By refusing to uphold the divine separations through which

the world was created, the Egyptians are returned to the primordial waters

where all boundaries are blurred.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO US BY TAKING

US OUT OF EGYPT?

With great signs and wonders God smites Pharaoh and car-

ries the Israelites out of Egypt. Even God however cannot remove Egypt fromthe Israelites. So deeply ingrained in human nature is the longing for Egypt

that it subsides even once Egypt is no more. The longing for Egypt, first

expressed before the crossing of the Reed Sea, will in fact become a recurrent

theme throughout the rest of the Torah. God, unlike Moses, knows that the

people will yearn for Egypt, in spite of the oppression they suffered at the

hands of Pharaoh. Even before taking the Israelites out of Egypt, God foresaw

that the people would balk at the first opportunity and head back toward

Egypt. He thus traced a route out of Egypt that avoided the land of the bellicosePhilistines lest the people, in seeing a war, reconsider and return to Egypt

(Ex. 13:17). It would in fact take much less than a war for the people to

question the decision to leave Egypt. In the desert, the Israelites will express

a desire to return to Egypt on seven different occasions (Ex. 14:12, 16:3,

17:3; Num. 11:20, 14:3-4, 20:5, 21:5). Threatened yet again by famine, the

people, like their forefather Abraham, place their trust, not in divine

providence, but in Egypt. For you have brought us out to this desert to kill

this entire congregation by famine, the people clamor to Moses and Aaron,If only we had died in Egypt (Ex. 16:3). Unlike Abram however who knew

nothing of YHWH, the Israelites had just witnessed a spectacular display of

his might.



17/110

Thirst, like famine, also brings out the Egyptian longing:

Why did you raise us out of Egypt to kill me and my children and my livestock

through thirst? (Ex. 17:3). Even when Gods providence is manifest with the

daily gift of manna, the people yearn for the lavishness of Egypt. Who will

feed us meat? the people cry out to Moses. We remember the fish we ate in

Egypt for free and the melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now our soul

is parched, there is nothing but this manna (Num. 11:4). Life in Egypt, they

conclude, was better: Why did we leave Egypt? (Num. 11:20). Upon hearing

the report of the spies about the dangers lying ahead in the Holy Land, the

people decide they have had enough: Let us appoint a leader and let us return

to Egypt (Num.14:3).Although the reader rapidly grows weary of the peoples

incessant refrain, their complaints demonstrate how resilient Egypt is. Humannature, as the biblical author forces us to conclude, will instinctively turn to

Egypt not only in trying times, but even, it seems,in frugal times. The New Way

simply cannot eradicate the Other Way.

If, however, the New Way is to gain a foothold among the

people, it must prove able to replace Egypt, as God did earlier with Isaac. Since

the people long for the Edenic Egypt, God promises them, on 15 different

occasions, that the Holy Land will be a land flowing with milk and honey.

In Canaan the Israelites will find great and beautiful cities that you did not

build, houses already filled with every good, wells already dug, orchards and

olive trees that you did not plant (Deut. 6:10). In short, a luxurious land

waiting to be occupied. There, as Moses announces, you will eat and be

satiated (Deut. 6:11). Famine, and the Egyptian longings it gives rise to, will

thus give way to satiety and prosperity.

If prosperity will lead the Israelites to forget Egypt, it may very

well lead them to forget God too. The children of the descendants from Egypt,born in the abundance of the Holy Land, might one day ask their parents why

these testimonies, laws and decrees that YHWH our God commandedyou?

(Deut. 6:20, emphasis added). Why, in other words, not go the way of Egypt

and only follow man-made laws? The children may still recognize YHWH as

their God, but they will need to be reminded why the laws were commanded to

all the Children of Israel for all times, and not just to the generation that left

Egypt. The people are thus instructed to tell their children: Slaves were we to

Pharaoh in Egypt and YHWH brought us out with a strong hand (Deut.11:21).The children will be taught what their parents learned the hard way: the

ways of manthe ways of Egyptlead to slavery.



18/110

FOR I AM YHWH WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT OF EGYPT.

In the last three scrolls of the Torah, the Children of Israel

have left Egypt but its memory remains ever present. God not only insists thateach Israelite remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life (Deut.

16:3) but repeatedly presents himself as YHWH, your God, who brought you

forth from the land of Egypt (Lev. 19:36). While most commandments are

simply announced to the people, many are presented while invoking the mem-

ory of Egypt. There does not however seem to be a pattern or connecting

thread uniting the latter. Perhaps a more discerning reader will figure one out.

This much however appears obviousthe most important commandments

are prefaced by remembering Egypt. In both presentations of the Ten SpokenWords (devarim), God, in the very first pronouncement, presents himself

as YHWH, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of

the house of slavery (Ex. 20:2 and Deut. 5:6). Israels God is the God who

elevates, removes, and withdraws his people from Egypt (Lev. 11:45,

Num. 15:41, Deut.4:20). In Leviticus 25, when God lays out the laws pertaining

to the Jubilee yearwhose centrality to the New Way is perhaps most evident

in Jeremiah 34 where God attributes the collapse of the country to the failure to

obey the sabbatical and jubilee lawsEgypt is mentioned three times. Lastly,

the only justification given for the many forbidden sexual relationships

detailed in Leviticus 18 is that Israel must never do the doings of the land of

Egypt (Lev. 18:3), nor those of its brother Canaan.Egypt,after all, was the land

where Pharaohs married their own sisters. The Torah forbids not only fraternal

incest, but the uncovering of the nakedness of any next of kin (Lev. 18:6).

More generally, the very act of lawgiving, of instituting a Law

which governs the entire people, stands in stark contrast to the absolute

despotism of Pharaonic Egypt. In the Torah, Gods Law has replaced thegod-man Pharaoh. Even when, departing from the New Way, the people ask for

a king,God anoints Saul onlyas a ruler over His heritage (I Sam.10:1, empha-

sis added). While the books of Samuel and Kings do not say explicitly that the

king is bound by the Law, there is no suggestion that he is not bound by it. In

this regard, our own modern liberal democracies, grounded in the rule of law,

echo something of the way of Israel, the way of Law.

In preserving the memory of Egypt alive within the followers

of the New Way, God insists that the Israelites distinguish between Egypt,the House of Bondage and symbol of the Other Way, and the Egyptians

themselves, who also must endure Pharaonic despotism. Thus, Moses warns

the people: You will not abhor an Egyptian for you were a sojourner in his



19/110

land (Deut. 23:8). The Torah even depicts individual Egyptianswhether it

be Hagar caring for her son, Potiphar entrusting Joseph or even the Pharaohs

daughter disobeying her father to save a Hebrew babyas decent people. Sacks

cites a Midrashic story of God declining to participate in a celebration after the

crossing of the Sea of Reeds as he was mourning the death of his Egyptian chil-

dren (1990, 386).

THAT MOSES PERFORMED BEFORE T HE

EYES OF ALL ISRAEL.

With the death of Moses, the scroll of Deuteronomy ends,

bringing the Torah to a close. Although liberated from the House of Slavery by

the hand of God, the Israelites, through their appalling behavior in the desert,have shown that they remain slaves to the ways of Egypt. They prove unfit to

enter the Holy Land and put in place the statutes, laws and ordinances of the

New Way. God thus condemns them to wander aimlessly for 40 years in the

desert and die there so that a new generation, unacquainted with Egypt, may

lead the conquest of Canaan. God does spare Joshua and Caleb. Righteous as

they may be, the biblical author may be indicating that in doing so,God allows

Egypt to creep in to the Holy Land, albeit symbolically. The victory of the New

Way is thus tainted. While God has asserted his providence and crushed Egypt,exposing it as land under the despotic control of a god-man, the people, for

whom God displayed his might, have not been convinced. The tension between

the ways of men and the ways of God remains. The penultimate verse of the

Torah thus speaks of the land of Egypt, Pharaoh, all his slaves and all his land

(Deut. 34:11). In a fitting way, the last scroll of the Torah does however end

with the word Israel. The Torahs closing words seem to express the biblical

authors hope that Israel, under the care of God, will ultimately triumph over

Egypt.

A D D E N D A

1. An analysis of word densities in the Torah in fact reveals

that EgyptandEgyptiansappear more often than IsraelandIsraelites in

both the books of Genesis and Exodus (Andersen and Forbes 1989). In fact, for

every mention of Israel in Genesis, there are two of Egypt. Furthermore,

Egypt and Egyptians are mentioned more often than all the other biblicalpeoples in the Pentateuch.



20/110

2. The modern reader should be careful not to import foreign

concepts, such as freedom, into the Torah. If Egypt is depicted as the House of

Slavery, the land of Canaan will not be a House of Freedom. There is in fact no

word for freedom in the Torah. Freedom (h_oufsha or dror) is only mentioned

incidentally, as the opposite of slavery (e.g. Lev. 19:20, 25:10). Slavery will exist,

even under the New Way, but every seventh year, all Israelites slaves will be

freed and, on the Jubilee year, return to their ancestral land (Ex. 21:2 and Lev.

25:39-43). Furthermore, the Torah contains many laws dealing with the manu-

mission of slaves (e.g. Ex. 21:26 and Deut. 15:12). Thus, while life under the

New Way will not be free in the modern sense, Egyptian slavery, from which

there is no escape, will cease.

RE F E R E N C E S

Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes. 1989. The Vocabulary of the Old

Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Currid, John D. 1997.Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Books.

Greifenhagen, F. V. 2003. Egypt on the Pentateuchs Ideological Map:Constructing Biblical Israels Identity. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Kass, Leon. 1994. Why the Dietary Laws? Commentary97: 42-48.

Maimonides, Moses. 1963. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo

Pines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Pangle,Thomas. 1995. The Hebrew Bibles Challenge to Political Philosophy:

Some Introductory Reflections. In Political Philosophy and the Human

Soul: Essays in Memory of Allan Bloom, edited by Michael Palmer and

Thomas Pangle. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Peet, T. Eric. 1924. Egypt and the Old Testament. Boston: Small, Maynard &

Company.

Petrie, Flinders. 1911. Egypt and Israel. New York: E.S. Gorham.

Sacks, Robert D. 1990.A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Lewiston, ME:

The Edwin Mellen Press.Voegelin, Eric. 1990. The Gospel and Culture. In Published Essays 1966-1985,

vol. 12 ofThe Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, edited by Ellis Sandoz.

Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.



21/110

Prince Harry: Shakespeares Critique of Machiavelli

A V E R Y P L A W

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH

[email protected]

Among the features specific to the text of Henry Vits apparentproperty of giving rise to particularly acrimonious division of

opinion has often been noted. To say that there are two camps

sharply opposing each other is indeed almost a commonplace of

critical literature,the one camp firmly applauding what they see as apanegyric upon, indeed a rousing celebration of, the mirror of

all Christian Kings and most successful English monarch of allthe histories; and the followers of the other camp deriding with noless conviction the exaltation of a Machiavellian conqueror in a

rapacious, and, after all, senseless war. (Walch 1988, 63)

In recent years a small but growing literature has emerged

urging the serious treatment of Shakespeare as a political thinker (Asquith

2005, Alexander 2004, Craig 2001, Spiekerman 2001, Alvis 2000, Joughin 1997,

A. Bloom 1996). Despite the quality of much of this work, however, the depth

and importance of Shakespeares political thought remains far from estab-

lished in contemporary Anglo-American political theory. This article

contributes to the case for Shakespeare as a serious political thinker by drawing

on his often-neglected Histories. It does so by revealing a sharp, albeit implicit,

critique of Niccolo Machiavellis political thought in Shakespeares Henriad

(Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V), and particularly in the story of Prince

Harrys maturation into Henry V. Here Shakespeare shows, contra Machiavelli,

that political virtu can in practice create political legitimacy only at an insup-

portable human cost. This realist line of critique was both original and forceful,

as this article will show.

The article also contributes to an ongoing debate over

whether Shakespeare had actually read Machiavelli (for overview, see Grady

2006 Interpretation, Inc.

1 9Prince Harry: Shakespeares Critique of Machiavelli


22/110


2002, 41-46, esp. fn. 44).Although Shakespeare does make explicit reference to

Machiavelli in the plays, and, as Felix Raab has convincingly shown,

Machiavelli was being quite widely read in England for a decade before

Shakespeare wrote the Henriad, the balance of scholarly opinion today remains

that Shakespeare had not read Machiavelli first hand (Raab 1964, 52-57). This

article offers new reasons to think that he did.

Finally, there is a longstanding and heated debate among

readers and audiences over how to read Henry V, and in particular how to

assess its title character. Is the play a nationalist paean to the mirror of all

Christian kings (as presented in Oliviers 1942 film) or a politically subversive

denunciation of a Machiavellian monster (as more clearly suggested inKenneth Branaghs 1989 film)? This article suggests that both traditional inter-

pretations are inadequate for several reasonsboth suffer from a tendency to

read Henry Vin isolation from the other history plays, both ignore the valid

insights of the other, and by consequence both sharply underestimate the

ambition and complexity of Shakespeares political thought. Once Henry Vis

placed in its dramatic context and read in relation to Machiavellis political

thought, a central theme that emerges is the extreme difficulty of consolidating

an illegitimate dynasty on the throne, regardless of the virtuosity of the prince.

Harry himself is presented as a deliberately ambiguous figurea supremely

gifted and inspiring prince who is prepared to commit terribly moral wrongs

to unify his country and legitimate his dynasty; he is the most glorious of

English kings, but also, ultimately, a failure. This re-reading revolves around

two key claims: first, that Shakespeare portrays Harry as an exemplary

Machiavellian prince, and second, that Shakespeare provides the material of a

telling critique of Harrys policy and the Machiavellian thought that informs it.

The second section of this article develops the former claim and the third the

latter. The first section locates Henry Vwithin the cycle of English Histories.

I. THE HENRIAD I N SHAKESPEARES ENGLISH HISTORIES

Shakespeares cycle of eight sequential English Histories

presents, in Herschel Bakers words, a story ofsin and retribution (Baker

1974, 801). The sin is committed in the first play, Richard II, in which Henry

Bullingbrook, the Duke of Herford, usurps his ineffectual cousin, Richard II.

The punishment covers the remainder of the Histories through to the eventual

accession of the first Tudor monarch, Henry VII, at the end ofRichard III. Theoverall structure of the cycle is closest to that of tragedy: fall and gradual

destruction ending in a suggestion of restored order (Shaw 1985, 61-67). In

characteristic style, Shakespeare suggests multiple explanations for this tragic


23/110

2 1

fall. As in Macbeth, which exhibits a similar narrative structure of regicide-dis-

order/punishment-restoration, Shakespeare intimates both a traditional

supernatural explanation for events, and a more realist political-psychological

logic at work. Shakespeare puts the providential explanation in the narrative

backgroundsin disrupts the divine order and needs to be expiated before

order can eventually be restored. In the dramatic foreground, however, he

presents a more realistic, political-psychological rationale. Rule without

legitimacy cultivates mounting disorders, both political and psychological,

which collaborate to unravel the social fabric and to drive politics into a vicious

cycle of rebellion and tyranny.

In developing the background providential interpretation ofthe historical cycle,Shakespeare suggests a moral critique of Machiavellis work

that parallels Machiavellis historical critics, from Innocent Gentillets Contre-

Machiavelthrough Frederick IIs Anti-Machiavel: Machiavellian politics is

morally evil and ultimately incurs divine punishment. In elaborating the

foreground political-psychological drama, however, Shakespeare opened a

new and fertile front of Machiavelli critiquethat Machiavelli failed exactly

where he himself was proudest, in providing a realistic account of human

nature and the way in which it structures political possibilities (Machiavelli

1979, 78, 126-27).

The main analytical focus of this essay will be on the political-

psychological explanation for the historical cycles narrative arc, but this is not

intended to deny or discount the traditional rhetoric of divine judgment which

suffuses the plays.However bad a King Richard II may have been, he remained,

as he himself never tires of pointing out, The deputy elected by the Lord

(III.ii.57). According to traditional divine right doctrine, as Richard himself

exclaims, Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off froman anointed king (III.ii.54-55). Consequently his removal (and murder) are

in a Christian climate soheinous, black, obscene a deed that they bring the

entire land, but the House of Lancaster in particular, under Gods curse

(IV.i.131). Following Richards removal, the Bishop of Carlisle foresees the ter-

rible doom that has been called down upon England as a consequence of this

unnatural act:

The blood of English shall manure the ground,

And future ages groan for this foul act.Peace shall go to sleep with Turks and infidels,

And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars

Shall kin with kin and kind with kind confound.Disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny



24/110


Shall here inhabit, and this land be calldThe field of Golgotha and dead mens skulls. (IV.i.137-44)

Of course Carlisle is right. The dramatic scope of this punitive strife isenormous, covering the remaining seven plays of the historical cycle. Misrule

and mounting civil wars convulse the kingdom, finally culminating in Richard

IIIs brief but bloody tyranny and ultimate defeat at Bosworth Field.

In developing his theme of crime and punishment, however,

Shakespeare encounters an enormous historical problemHenry V. Between

the rebellion-filled reign of the usurper Henry (IV) Bullingbrook, and the

disastrous reign of his grandson Henry VI that began the terrible civil Wars of

the Roses, Shakespeare is confronted with the brief but undeniably glorious

reign of Henry V, conqueror of France. Shakespeare has to deal with only one

great king to confound Carlisles prophecy, but that one is historically

inescapable.

Shakespeares problem, then, is how he can fit Harrys reign

into his story of regicide and retribution. I want to suggest that Shakespeare

solves the problem by presenting Harry as an embodiment of Machiavellian

political virtu who is able to seizefortuna, and briefly achieve unity at homethrough conquest abroad. Despite his remarkable victory at Agincourt,

however, Shakespeare reminds us that Harrys success proves short-lived.

He thus shows that a genuinely gifted and devoted Machiavellian prince

can sometimes momentarily reverse the process of political degeneration

associated with illegitimacy, but the effect lasts only as long as his tour-de-force

performance as Warrior-King does. Moreover, the psychological demands of

the performance prove unsustainable for the leader, and impose some heavy

costs on the people. In short, the victory is pyrrhic.

Of course, Harry never explicitly invokes the image of

Machiavelli, and nor does any other character in reference to him. But this is

only a testament to the success of Harrys political performance: he never

appears publicly as the brutal political realist that we, the audience,are permit-

ted to see that he is. In this way, Harry realizes one of Machiavellis central

political precepts: one must know how to be bad while always appearing good

(Machiavelli 1979, 127-28). It is through what he reveals directly and indirectly

to the audience that we must assess Harrys character and what Shakespeareillustrates through him. In the following section, I examine Harrys

Machiavellian character and behavior.


25/110

II. HARRY AS AN EXEMPLARY MACHIAVELLIAN PRINCE

Machiavellis The Prince is a manual on how to rule success-

fully dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici. Both because it is addressed to Lorenzo,and because Machiavelli wants to confront the most difficult cases, the book is

primarily concerned with the question of how a newprince, especially one

whose legitimacy is unclear, can consolidate his position. As Machiavelli

summarizes, The things written above, if followed prudently, make a new

prince seem well established and render him immediately safer and more

established in his state than if he had been in it for some time.they attract

men much more and bind them to him more strongly than does ancient

blood (Machiavelli 1979, 157). Indeed, some commentators have identifiedMachiavellis focus on the practical problem of legitimating governance as the

root of his originality and influence. J. G. A. Pocock, for example, writes that

his great originality is that of a student of delegitimized politics (Pocock

1975, 136). Machiavellis work then, and especiallyThe Prince, speaks very

directly to Harrys position, and Harry follows its precepts closely.

The central action ofHenry Vis,of course,the war with France,

and so it is probably the best place to begin to explore Harrys political strategy.

As Shakespeare presents it (skipping the first two years of Harrys reign (1413-15)including the Lollard rebellion), the entirety of Harrys policy is immediate war

with France: as Harry declares in the second scene, we have now no thought in

us but France (I.ii.302). By relentlessly pursuing a war of conquest, Harry

cynically fulfills his dying fathers Machiavellian advice to him, to busy giddy

minds/With foreign quarrels (II Henry IV, IV.v.213-14). Where his father,

however, was driven by his guilty conscience to talk endlessly about a crusade

to the Holy Land,Harry sets his sights on the more practical target of France.

Shakespeares depiction of Harry as exclusively focused on

war coheres precisely with Machiavellis general advice to princes: A prince,

therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he

take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline;

because that is the only profession which befits one who commands

(Machiavelli 1979, 124). Moreover, Nothing makes a prince more esteemed

than great undertakings and examples of his unusual talents (150-51).

Machiavelli offers Ferdinand of Aragon as a paradigm of the virtuous new

prince because Ferdinand from being a weak rulerbecame, through fameand glory, the first king of Christendom. The key to his success, according to

Machiavelli, was immediately attacking his neighbor (Granada) in order to

consolidate his position at home.Further, Machiavelli stresses that he was able

2 3Prince Harry: Shakespeares Critique of Machiavelli


26/110


to maintain armies with money from the church. A new prince, then,

especially one whose own position is problematic, should find a pretext and

immediately go to war with a vulnerable neighbor and, if possible, get the

church to underwrite the venture.

The strategic character of Harrys policy of war with France

is clearly suggested at the beginning of Henry V, where Shakespeare calls the

casus belli into question. Act I, Scene I opens with the Archbishop of

Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely discussing a bill urged in the Commons

to confiscate the better half of [the churchs] possession (I.i.8). It quickly

materializes, however, that the Archbishop has made an offer to the new King

As concerning France in exchange for his opposition to the bill (I.i.79). Tobegin with, he has offered a substantial war chesta greater sum/Than ever at

one time the clergy yet/Did to his predecessor part withal (I.i.79-81).

Moreover, in the following scene, the Archbishop provides Harry with a highly

obscure and convoluted justification for his claims to some certain

Dukedoms in France (I.ii.247). Finally, when Harry cuts through all the

verbiage and asks the big question, May I with right and conscience make

this claim? Canterbury answers pregnantlyThe sin upon my head dread

sovereign! (I.ii.96-97). Without any direct exercise of power, Harry gets the

church not only to finance his war on his vulnerable neighbor, as Machiavelli

recommends, but to take responsibility for it as well. In treating these events,

Shakespeare diverges in important details from his historical sources with the

apparent intent to suggest that the invasion has been Harrys plan all along

(Holinshed 1974, 64-65; Bullough 1962, 352).

Once Harrys claim has been confirmed by the countrys highest

spiritual authority, he gives admission to the French ambassadors, who deliver

the Dauphins contemptuous rebuff. When Harry responds with cold fury,his claim has expanded to my throne of France (I.ii.275). After this, Harry

makes no further mention of the casus belli (although the injustice of the war

continues to haunt the play). By the final act, however, Harry openly confesses

to Katherine what his intention has been all along: I will have it all mine

(V.ii.173-76).

All of this emphasis on Harrys duplicity, however, only

reaffirms something that Shakespeares audience, indeed any audience who has

watched the previous plays, knowsHarrys claims to the French crown areobviously specious. He is not even the legitimate King of England. This fact

gives a deeply ironic truth to Harrys proud declaration on his disembarkation

from Dover,No king of England, if not king of France! (II.ii.193).


27/110

2 5

Shakespeare went to some trouble, then, to cast doubt on

the justness of Harrys war. Harry needs a war because of his own problem of

legitimacy, and the corresponding threat of the kind of political instability that

plagued his fathers reign, and he senses weakness in France. So he marries

Machiavellis advice with an astute political opportunism in a great enter-

prise designed to showcase the military talents he had already began to exhibit

at Shrewsbury. Harry then embarks on precisely the bold but realistic martial

policy which Machiavelli champions (Machiavelli 1979, 94, 159-62). Indeed,

once Harrys strategy becomes clear, one notices how carefully he has stage-

managed the opening court scene (I.ii) to cast himself in the role of the injured

party and to create a credible pretext for war (Sullivan 1996, 135-39;

Spiekerman 2001, 129-31).One notes, for example, that Harry has cannily senthis peremptory claim to the Dauphin (who is sure to send a disdainful

response) rather than to King Charles who could actually decide its merit. One

also notices Canterburys subtle suggestion that Harry has had a chance to

learn the basic content of the French embassy before formally receiving the

ambassadors, and one wonders whether the whole scene is not a meticulously

crafted performance, rather the like the one that he long before practiced with

Falstaff to deceive his father (I Henry IV, II.iv).

Indeed, Shakespeare continuously portrays Harry, through-

out the Henriad, practicing the art of deception, sometimes in a humorous

vein, and sometimes deadly seriouslyfor example, in 1 Henry IV, II.ii, II.iv,

III.ii, III.iii (so frequently in fact that Vickie Sullivan aptly dubs him

the Machiavellian Prince of Appearance: Sullivan 1996, 125). At the end of

the very first scene in which he appears, Harry gives a soliloquy revealing an

elaborate plan to deceive everyone about his (dissolute) character.

Prince: .... By so much shall I falsify mens hopes,And like bright metal on a sullen ground

My reformation, glittring oer my fault,Shall show more goodly and attract more eyesThan that which hath no foil to set it off

(I Henry IV, I.ii. 197-215).

In the remaining Henriad, he goes on to realize his plan spectacularly. In this

Harry immediately puts to work Machiavellis advice that a prince who wishes

to accomplish great things must learn to deceive (Machiavelli 1979, 315).Moreover, this portrayal of Harry as, in John Blanpieds words, a natural

actor, a dramatic genius of manipulation, seems to be entirely Shakespeares

own invention (Blanpied 1983, 163; compare Holinshed 1974, 53-62).



28/110


According to Machiavelli, the first necessity in consolidating

power and preparing the nation for war is to neutralize potential threats to

ones rule. Above all, Machiavelli emphasizes that a new prince of insecure title

needs to win the support of the people, for his nobles will tend to think them-

selves his equals, and he will be unable to command them effectively unless he

haspopular favor, in which case he will find no one or very few, who are not

ready to obey him (Machiavelli 1979, 107-8, 136-38, 158,376). This too is part

of Harrys plan. He wins the love and trust of the people as the Crown Prince

by demonstrating that he is one of them. His youthful slumming mainly takes

the form of scandalously associating with the notorious gang of Eastcheap

thieves led by his popular friend, that villainous, abominable misleader of

youth, Sir John Falstaff (II.iv.462-63). Indeed, Harry is introduced to us, andalmost exclusively appears in I Henry IV, in Falstaffs tavern world. By soaking

himself, in Fryes words, in every social aspect of the kingdom, Harryis

becoming the entire nation in individual form, which is exactly what a king is

(Frye 1986, 78). In other words, he deliberately creates the bond with his

people that a monarch would usually (according to tradition) have by nature.

Two quick examples suffice to capture the depth of the love Harry inspires.

At the opening of the Second Act ofHenry Vwe see the

remnants of the Eastcheap gangBardolph, Nym, Pistol and the Hostess

quarrelling and lamenting over the sudden illness that has struck their leader,

Falstaff. The Hostess puts it aptly: The King has killd his heart (II.i.88).

They have good reason to be angry and bitter with Harry, who has cruelly

abandoned Falstaff and themselves.Yet, a few lines later we hear,

Hostess: Ah, poor heart! He [Falstaff] is so shakd of a burningquotidian tertian, that it is most lamentable to behold.

Sweet men, come to him.

Nym: The King hath run bad humors on the knight, thats theeven of it.

Pistol: Nym, thou hast spoke the right.

His heart is fracted and corroborate.Nym: The King is a good king, but it must be as it may; he

passes some humors and careers.

Pistol: Let us condole the knight, for, lambkins, we will live.

(II.i.118-28)

They care too much for the murderer of Falstaff to blame him.

Again, Harry (in disguise) approaches Ancient Pistol on

the night before Agincourt. Harry has seemingly led his army to certain


29/110

2 7

destruction, and has also just approved the hanging of their mutual old friend,

Bardolph, for a minor offence.When,however, Harry turns the conversation to

the subject of the King, Pistol declares, The Kings a bawcock, and a heart of

gold,/A lad of life, an imp of fame,/Of parents good, of fist most valiant./I kiss

his dirty shoe, and from heart-string/I love the bully boy (IV.i.44-8). So Harry

successfully puts Machiavellis advice to work by undertaking an elaborate

performance that wins him the hearts of the people, and, by consequence,

he controls his nobles: as Westmoreland assures him in the first court scene,

Never King of England/Had nobles richer and more loyal subjects

(I.ii.126-27).

Yet, since men are a sorry lot, (self-serving, short-sighted, gullible, usuallywicked and treacherous) and love can be fickle,

Machiavelli emphasizes that it is even more prudent to be feared than loved

(Machiavelli 1979, 86, 95, 123, 131, 134, 181). Fear is especially valuable to a

prince because it will never abandon you (131). While Machiavelli admits

that it is difficult to join [fear and love] together, he nonetheless insists that a

prince should like to be both one and the other. Harry works hard to be

feared as well as loved.His justice is harsh (consider the slaughter of the French

prisoners he orders at Agincourt, or the hanging of Bardolph), regardless of his

personal feelings for the condemned (IV.vi.37-38; III.vi). He always quickly

carries through on his threats (the rapid invasion of France, for example), and

some of his threats are savage indeed: at Harfleur, for example, he shouts

K. Henry: . Therefore, you men of HarflewTake pity of your town and of your people [i.e., andsurrender]

If notwhy, in a moment look to seeThe blind and bloody soldier with foul hand

[Defile] the locks of your shrill-shriking daughters;Your fathers taken by their silver beards,

And their most reverend heads dashd to the walls;Your naked infants spitted on pikes,

Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confusdDo break the clouds.What say you? Will you yield, and this avoid?

Or guilty in defense, be thus destroyd? (III.iii.27-43)

Fortunately, faced with so vivid a prospect, the town surrenders and Harryis not required to carry through this threat. Nonetheless, it is clear that he

cultivates fear, both in his enemies and in his own subjects. Cambridge affirms

the success of the King in words that directly echo Machiavelli when he insists



30/110


Never was monarch better feard and lovd/Than is your majesty (II.ii.25-26).

Machiavelli gives further tough advice to the prince in

dealing with his subjects and friends (Machiavelli 1979, 126). Given theexigencies of politics, a prince must be ready to break his bonds of obligation,

even his promises, when such an observance of faith would be to his

disadvantage and when the reasons that made him promise are removed

(134). The single historical incident Machiavelli praises most frequently was

Junius Brutus condemning his own children to death when he discovered that

they were plotting to overthrow the state (for example, 219, 221, 353, 356).

Brutus gesture was a powerful expression of a leaders devotion to the

common good. This is exactly what Harry does in the very moments followinghis coronation. Falstaff has ridden all night to be there for the event, declaring

the laws of England are at my commandment.Blessed are they that have been

my friends, and woe to my Lord Chief Justice! (II Henry IV, V.iii.136-38). He

bursts from the crowd at the parade following the coronation, crying My king,

my Jove! I speak to thee my heart! The King answers,

King: I know thee not, old man, fall to thy prayers.

How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!I have long dreamt of such a kind of man,

So surfeit swelld, so old, and so profane;But being awakd, I do despise my dream.Reply not to me with a fool-born jest,

Presume not that I am the thing I was

For God doth know, so shall the world perceive,

That I have turnd away my former self;So will I those that kept me company. (V.v.47-59)

Harry proceeds to banish Sir John ten miles from his presence, and the old

knight, publicly rejected, withers and soon dies. The metaphor Harry uses inthe last two linesturning away his former self, banishing it along with his

friendsis especially revealing. The image is strikingly echoed in Sigmund

Freuds definition of repression:The essence of repression lies simply in turn-

ing something away and keeping it a distance from the conscious (Freud 1957,

147). As he becomes king then, Harry rejects a former part of himself, a choice

that may prove more psychologically damaging than he realizes. On the other

hand, this gesture of public repudiation, more than anything else, persuades

the leading nobles that Harrys conversion is genuine, and earns their trust. So,although Harrys brutality is emotional rather than physical, and is directed at

a father figure rather than a child, the political effect is much the same.


31/110

2 9

Having then followed Machiavellis advice and established his

supreme commitment to the public good, and won the love and fear of the

people and the loyalty of the nobles, Harry is in a position on his accession to

Assume the port of Mars and initiate the war that will finally consolidate

unity at home and legitimize his dynasty. In undertaking the enterprise, Harry

again follows Machiavellian advice (I.i.6). First,he mustferret outandextin-

guish any weak links among his powerful subjects who may conspire with the

enemy against him (Machiavelli 1979, 80-84, 136-39, 357-74). In particular,

Machiavelli recommends that he should scrutinize those for whom he has

done too many favors (362). Once identified, these enemies should be anni-

hilated in one swift sweep, because injuries should be inflicted all at the

same time, for the less they are tasted, the less they offend (106-7). Further,when the prince has to make such harsh decisions, he must delegate distaste-

ful tasks to others; pleasant ones [he] should keep for [him]self (139). One

prominent example will be sufficient to illustrate Harrys masterful application

of these principles.

Even before he leaves Southampton, Harrys active intelli-

gence uncovers a plot on his life among some of his most favored advisors. It is

discovered that Lord Scroop, the Earl of Cambridge and Sir Thomas Grey have

accepted bribes from the French to murder their King. Rather than simply

arrest them, however, Harry characteristically feigns ignorance and plays an

elaborate scene with them in which he proposes to pardon a man accused of

speaking abusively of the King. He elicits predictable protests from Scroop,

Cambridge and Grey that he is being too merciful. At this point, he reveals his

knowledge of their plot, and when they predictably submit themselves to his

mercy, he responds The mercy that was quick in us of late,/By your own coun-

sel is suppressd and killd./You must not dare (for shame) to talk of mercy,/For

your own reasons turn into your bosoms,/As dogs upon their masters

(II.ii.79-83). Harry then condemns them to immediate death. Not only, then,

does he uncover and eliminate his enemies among his peers, but he tricks them

into taking responsibility for their own merciless dispatch. In essence, he

deflects responsibility for their condemnation onto the victims themselves.

Indeed, this is the same slight of hand that he employs at Harfleur, when he

insists that should the city fail to surrender, they themselves will be guilty in

defense of the awful reign ofmurther, spoil and villainy he threatens to

unleash (III.iii.32; Sullivan 1996, 139-40). Harry then clearly exhibits theMachiavellian wisdom that savage and immediate punishment is necessary,

but that responsibility must be deflected elsewhere.



32/110


By persistently deflecting responsibility for his harsh deci-

sions, Harry protects the purity of his reputation, particularly in the eyes of his

own people. This is no easy task, however, for as Machiavelli teaches,a prince,

and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things by which men are

considered good, for in order to maintain that state he is often obliged to act

against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion

(Machiavelli 1979, 135). This is not, however, a license for unrestrained evil.

Machiavelli holds that as long as possible, he should not stray from the good,

but he should know how to enter into evil when necessity commands. Still, in

the eyes of his own people,he should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to

be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion. And there is

nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality [i.e., religion].It is for these reasons that virtu, especially for a new prince, is, in part, an art of

deceptiona skill in which Harry excels. He is perceived, in the Choruss

words, as the mirror of all Christian kings (II.o.16). Indeed, no king in

Shakespeare defers publicly to God half as often as Harry does.

It will come as no surprise that in the actual prosecution of

the war, Harry follows Machiavellis maxims carefully. In virtually every impor-

tant respect, then, Harrys strategy and conduct faithfully reflect Machiavellis

advice. While this consistent coherence does not prove anything (it might, of

course, be purely coincidental), its systematicity provides some grounds for

thinking first that Shakespeare was familiar with Machiavellis writing, or at

least the key points of his actual texts, and second that Shakespeare deliberately

presents Harry as an embodiment of Machiavellian virtu. Two brief further

points, one textual and one thematic, help to consolidate these suggestions.

The first point concerns two textual elements whose role in

the play has long baffled critics: (1) the continual pedantic arguments amongthe officers, and Captain Fluellen in particular, about the true disciplines of

war, that is, the Roman wars, and (2) the fascination with comparing Harry

with the great military leaders of antiquity which continues throughout the

campaign (for example, III.ii.72, 58, 81, 96-97, 129, 140).

Fluellen is persistently frustrated that Harrys army is not able

to attain the disciplines of the pristine wars of the Romans (III.ii.81-82).

Encamped noisily on the eve of Agincourt, for example, he characteristically

remonstrates,if you would take the pains but to examine the wars of Pompeythe Great, you shall find, I warrant you, no tiddle taddle nor pibble babble in

Pompeys camp (IV.i.68-71). During the battle, he pauses, inexplicably, to offer

an extended discursive comparison of Harry to Alexander the Great. First, he


33/110

3 1

spends about thirty lines establishing that both Harry and Alexander were

born in towns through which a river ran. He then elaborates a second point of

comparison:

Fluellen: If you mark Alexanders life well, Harry of Monmouthslife is come after it indifferent well, for there is figures in

all things. Alexander, God knows, and you know, in his

rages and his furies, and his wraths, and his cholers and

his moods, and his displeasures, and his indignations,

and also being a little intoxicates in his prains, did, in his

ales and his angers, look you, kill his best friend, Clytus.

Gower: Our King is not like him in that; he never killd any of hisfriends.

Fluellen: It is not well done, mark you now, to take the tales out ofmy mouth, ere it is made and finished. I speak but in fig-

ures and comparisons of it: as Alexander killd his friendClytus, being in his ales and his cups; so also Harry

Monmouth, being in his right wits, turnd away the fatknight with the great belly doublet. He was full of jests,

and gipes and knaveries, and mocksI have forgot hisname.

Gower: Sir John Falstaff. (IV.vii.31-51)

Fluellens untimely meditations are clearly calculated to provide some comic

relief and to remind us again of Harrys betrayal of Falstaff, but the question

remains, why does the reminder take this odd pedantic form?

The answer, I suggest, is that these passages ridicule

Machiavellis distinctive method of learning princely virtue by studying and

imitating the great leaders of antiquity. In The Prince Machiavelli tells us that

the prince must read histories and in them study the deeds of great men; he

must see how they conducted themselves in wars; he must examine the reasonsfor their victories and for their defeats in order to avoid the latter and to imitate

the former, and above all else he must do as some distinguished man before

him has done (Machiavelli 1979, 126). This is of course Machiavellis own

method and it is his knowledge and skill in this domain (including allusions

to both Pompey and Alexander) that he believes gives special value to his

work (78). A deliberate reference to Machiavelli then provides a plausible

explanation of these many odd passages in the play, and in particular of the

introduction of the new character of Fluellen in Henry V. This reductioad absurdum of Machiavellis method would also support the more general

critique outlined in the next section. Such a reference, however, argues not

mere familiarity with Machiavellis main ideas and method, but also with the



34/110


specific texture of his writing.

The second point further reinforces the plays concern with

Machiavellian politics, not so much at the level of method, but in terms of anastute understanding of Machiavellis themes. If, as I have suggested,

Shakespeare deliberately presents Harry as an exemplary Machiavellian prince,

then a strong case can be made that Shakespeare understands Machiavellis

work more acutely than other Elizabethan dramatists (or indeed Machiavellis

prominent critics of the time). Anthony Parel, for example, forcefully

shows that Elizabethan dramatists like Marlowe and Jonson, following

the dominant scholarship, treat Machiavelli as a coldly amoral teacher of

self-aggrandizement through any means necessaryas exemplified, forinstance, in theMachiavelli who is prologue to Marlowes The Jew of Malta or

Jonsons Sir Politic Would-be. These figures, however, reflect meanly truncated

readings of Machiavelli (Parel 1972, 22).

In fact, as seen above, Machiavelli insists that princes should

ne

Documents

Interpretation, Vol 33-1