Occasional Paper Number Ten

JOINT MILITARY

INT

E

LLIGENCE COLLEGE

1

9

6

2

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0

Occasional Paper Number Ten

SHAKESPEARE FOR ANALYSTS:

LITERATURE AND INTELLIGENCE

Jeffrey White

WASHINGTON, DC

July 2003

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author

and do not reflect the official policy or position of the 

Department of Defense or the U.S. Government
iii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The Challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Why Read Shakespeare as an Analyst? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Why Not Read Shakespeare? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Reading Shakespeare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Approach, Format, and Selection of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Heroic Leadership: Henry V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Failure at the Top: Richard II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

“The Biography of Force”: Richard III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Civil War: 1,2,3 Henry VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

To Plot a Coup: Julius Caesar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Family Matters: Henry VI and Richard III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

What About the Women? Margaret of Anjou in Henry VI . . . . . . . . . . . . 

“My loyalty is sometimes my honor”: Loyalty in King John and Richard 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
v

Will Washington, DC’s Folger Theater realize a sharp increase in attendan

of the U.S. Intelligence Community as a result of the appearance of this mono

a distinct possibility. Jeff White, for nearly 35 years one of the Defen

Agency’s most distinguished military analysts until his retirement in late 20

to see that happen. And the reader of this monograph will quickly learn why

is that a good understanding of Shakespeare’s art can contribute to improv

analysis.

For those who have worked and enjoyed life with the author, Jeff White 

mate military intelligence analyst. His forté is military history, and over the 

him articulate and skillful in assessing military campaigns—from Thermo

court to Waterloo to Gettysburg to Verdun to El Alamein to Abu Ageila to V

a number of years, he taught a course at the then-Defense Intelligence Co

Middle East conflicts were examined through the lens of military campaig

nearly 25 years we worked together, I never learned of his abiding inter

peare—until that day in late 2002, shortly before his retirement, when the 

this Occasional Paper appeared on my computer screen.

In addition to being an outstanding and influential analyst, Jeff was also 

20 years of his career a well-respected leader of analysts. I interpret the app

manuscript at the twilight of his government intelligence career as yet an

exerting leadership. So you want to be a fine intelligence analyst, asks the 

of the trade? Here is a secret—Shakespeare!!!

At first I was skeptical, but from page one, as I began to perceive the au

sis,” I started to see the point. In the scientifically-ordered approach to r

come to dominate modern Western man, including intelligence analysts, w

wrong.” White’s appeal is for a revival of the humanities-based appreciation 

as a factor in assessing, interpreting, and predicting human interactions. An

to start than with the Master himself?

When you think about it—unfortunately I had to read this monog

thought about it—Shakespeare’s interests coincided in many ways with th

cupations of intelligence analysts: coups d’etat (Richard II), political 

(Julius Caesar), civil wars and international wars (Henry V, Henry VI—A

of the Roses), political tyranny (Richard III), political/military leadersh

above, but White focuses on Henry V). White considers them excellent a

studies. Although Shakespeare may have been an imperfect historian—the 

nition creates a “distorted” reality—and his characters may be somewha

believe White would say they inform us all the more because of their l

stature. This monograph was written before Operation IRAQI FREEDO

April 2003, so the occasional references to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussei

bit dated. But now the reader may be in an even better position to evaluate 
vi

mind of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein.

I must let the reader decide whether the author’s key argument has merit. 

does. But whatever the case, this work has value. It reawakened in me an 

Shakespeare. It had not occurred to me to conceptualize Shakespeare from the 

of the intelligence analyst. Shakespeare becomes fascinating from this pe

believe Shakespeare, as White argues, does help inform us regarding the ke

that intelligence analysts habitually ask. Why do some men covet power? Wh

to usurp power? What is it like to lose power? What are the limits on the exerci

and the use of force? When does the decision to use force emerge? How do

expand? What kinds of behavior and actions does use of violence produce? H

lence justified by both sides of a conflict? How do unintended consequences e

carefully planned events? All these and many more are explored by White in 

written essay. The reader will learn a lot about Shakespeare by reading it. The 

also think more deeply about intelligence analysis by a close study of this pap

Intelligence analysis is often the “art” of credible prediction on the ba

incomplete evidence. Understanding the essence of human nature, especially 

ates in cultures foreign to our own, plays a most important role in compensatin

ficient evidence. White reminds us that the tribal and religiously animated Eng

15th and 16th centuries was a society akin to many of the societies and countri

occupy intelligence analysts today. We can learn a lot from knowing about th

White’s perspective is that Shakespeare is the best window we have into tha

doesn’t have to know Shakespeare to appreciate this essay, but I assure you it 

reader closer to Shakespeare and perhaps make him or her an improved intell

lyst in the process. It would not be surprising if readers became regular devo

Folger Theater as a consequence.

Max L. Gross

Dean, School of Intelligence Studi

Washington, DC

June 2003
1

LITERATURE AND INTELLIGENCE

Thus far, with rough and all-unable pen,

Our bending author hath pursued the story,

In little room confining mighty men,

Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.

Henry V

INTRODUCTION

This paper is an argument and a suggestion. The argument is that wha

had to say about human behavior in the political and leadership realms is 

and hearing, today. The suggestion is that analysts concerned with und

behavior of important individuals—leaders, commanders, supporters, fam

enemies, rivals, inner circle members, opposition figures—should do so. I

“out of the box” idea; but I would contend that Shakespeare should be part o

intelligence literature, a fundamental addition to the works that intelligence 

read.

More precisely, I see great literature as a potential source of experti

applied to intelligence issues of current interest. I would argue that today

dominated by two camps of thought, in a fashion akin to the two cultures 

ago by C.P. Snow—science and social science,1

a focus that left little room f

the third culture with which he was most concerned: the humanities. Alth

people with humanities or literature degrees, we do not use much of w

learned, except perhaps for their writing skills. At this time, we cannot spea

ties-based approach to analysis, as we can of functional (science) or regio

ence) approaches.

I think this shortcoming causes us to miss something. Intelligence pro

those not in the science arena, are so difficult that we need to consider and a

all potential sources of insight. Study of the humanities, and especially of 

help. Reading and studying literature expands the imagination, and analys

nation to make inferences, to bridge gaps in information, to see patterns, i

for discovery. Those who study literature learn to interpret. This is the ess

making.” Literature can assist us in the area of “storytelling.” Good literatur

tive dimension, which is conveyed to its students. Good storytelling eng

vinces in ways that traditional intelligence reporting and analysis do not. W

to write pure fiction, although I would suggest that there might be a place 

1

 C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1998.
2

understood, and absorbed. We want, in Russ McDonalds words, ... to create 

nity of thought and feeling” between our consumers and us.2 This is especiall

as analysis, particularly functional analysis, becomes more and more specia

does it all mean? is a more important and difficult question than What doe

mean? Good literature is overwhelmingly concerned with human behavior, 

understanding human behavior that we are likely to get the most help from t

ties. Literature provides many powerful character studies, images, models, and 

of people acting and thinking under a wide range of circumstances. These shou

able to analysts to draw upon.

More directly even than that is the approach implicit in Shakespeare: the 

and then exploration of the complexity and diversity of the human element a

spring for achieving understanding, even wisdom, regarding the reality of poli

ior. Machiavelli, who addressed many of the same issues as Shakespear

Shakespeare was an acute observer of political man, wrote about political beh

ought to be.3 He was prescribing. Shakespeare wrote about political behavior 

was illuminating. According to Alexander Leggatt, Shakespeare’s “interest is n

ining what political structures best serve the general good, but in watching h

behave within the structures they have.”4 We have many tools to assist analyst

any allow us to explore the behavioral and cognitive worlds of political and m

ers and those around them as effectively as does Shakespeare.

This is not a suggestion for everyone. Shakespeare is difficult, but rewardi

vides a mirror for reflecting on political and social behavior, a mirror, which, if 

right angle, produces powerful models, metaphors, and images that illuminate

THE CHALLENGE

The range of issues faced by intelligence analysts is enormous: from ques

most intricate detail to the broadest problems of policy and forecasting. To 

tions analysts bring a variety of tools, methods, and experiences. Through skill

tion they are able to resolve, or at least reduce, some of the uncertainty surro

issues they face. Success is most readily found when the questions concer

order of battle, infrastructure, facilities, air defense sites, and the technical cap

weapons. These involve questions of fact, or what is within the physical wor

coverable much of the time through traditional intelligence tools and techniqu

2 Russ McDonald, Shakespeare and the Arts of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2

3 Tim Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism: The English History Plays (New Yo

University of New York Press, 2001), 26. 4 Alexander Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama: the History Plays and the Roman Pla

York: Routledge, 1988), 238.
3

come to understand how and for what purpose the components of a system 

for what ends, and to what effect. Dynamic elements and processes becom

interest. Understanding “systems” of “things” can be a difficult challeng

most difficult.

A third, and most difficult, set of problems involves the people that co

and employ the systems. These problems are in the realm of human behav

realm the analyst faces the complexities of cognition, social interaction

behavior, with their associated and consequent uncertainty and unpredictab

nately, but also intriguingly, for intelligence professionals, many of the key 

are asked fall into this realm. Questions such as: What is the future direction 

government?; How will Iran respond to the threat of regime change?; At 

will, a dictator like Saddam concede defeat?; What are Chinese intention

wan?; How stable is Bashar Asad’s Syrian regime?; and Who is aiming to 

Traditional intelligence methods often can only partially answer these kind

Some additional assistance is provided by modern techniques borrowed fro

and sociology; but the analyst is often left with only their own understand

ing for, how human “targets” think, how this thinking is linked to action

purposes. When the issues are important and the stakes are high, “feeling” 

WHY READ SHAKESPEARE AS AN ANALYST?

In our day, when dead European white males are being expunged from t

why still read Shakespeare? He is unquestionably dead, European, white, a

Reaching back 400 years to an “old dead Englishman” to find help in ans

tant questions of current intelligence interest seems a leap; but I would ma

ments to support the purposeful reading of Shakespeare: He is indeed releva

insight into human behavior, and he provides multifaceted perspectives 

important roles and complex events. In Tim Spiekerman’s words,6 Shake

keen observer of political practice with an eye for the permanent political pr

Shakespeare’s relevance to modern analysts is based on the material h

many of his plays. Shakespeare chose as core subject matter for his histo

tragedies a number of the principal political and military events and figu

and ancient history. His source material was the best scholarship of the time 

history of England and the ancient world. If imbued with a Tudor perspecti

was mediated through Shakespeare’s profound ability to represent the full r

plexity of human behavior. 

5

 David Bevington, Shakespeare (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), 1. 6

 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 17.
4

wrote to entertain, he also wrote to inform a sophisticated audience famili

recent history of England, and intensely involved in its political life. Among th

political events and issues of the time were the Northern Rebellion of 1569, th

plot of 1572, the Babington Plot of 1586, continuing concern with foreign in

internal uprising, a sustained struggle between Protestants and Catholics for co

monarchy, and uncertainty over succession. Shakespeare’s relevance was acc

time. Elizabeth I stated at one point “I am Richard II,” and during her reign the 

scene from the play was censored. 7

As Sir Ian McKellen put it in an interview about his lead role in the 1995 fi

of Richard III: “It isn’t the story of the nation. It’s the story of the people who 

nation.”8 These kings, queens, and other “magnates,” their close associates (“

and their enemies and rivals all provided the human material for Shakespeare’s 

tragedies also focused on the behavior of important political and military fig

historical and some legendary) and their associates from antiquity. By focu

central figures of key historical events, Shakespeare could observe people u

tions of significant stress, uncertainty, and opportunity—the same conditions f

powerful in his audience. Together, this human and historical material consti

laboratory for examining human behavior. In the words of one authority: “S

watches, moment by moment, the way his political figures impress others, 

selves, the means they use to do so, and the price they pay.” 9

Shakespeare cut and trimmed from his sources, and did not always relate h

rately; but in the doing he gave us vivid recreations of the thought and behavi

of some of the most powerful figures in English and ancient history. Arguably 

traits bring us closer to the reality of these characters than standard historica

Tim Spiekerman wrote of King John:

As is typical of his English history plays, the plot of Shakespeare’s K

driven by a violent struggle for political power. It features conspira

assassination, moral corruption, poisoning, civil war, and foreign con

Much of Shakespeare’s body of work addresses human behavior in contexts 

intelligence interest: inner-circle behavior; political relationships; the effects o

tries in culture, power, and personality; international war; coalition warfare; civ

archy; legitimacy; succession; rivalry and faction; loyalty; political violence; the 

motives; and the handling of ambiguity and uncertainty. Through Shakespeare w

sophisticated perspectives on the personalities and behaviors of modern lead

events they are involved in. Shakespeare made the most of his material, and we 

7

 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 72. 8

 Interview with Sir Ian McKellen, http://www.r3.org/onstage/FILM/mckel1a.html. 9

 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, xi. 10 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 39.
5

One criticism of drawing on Shakespeare the way I am suggesting is t

material he used were products of the “Western” cultural experience, and 

only with difficulty, if at all, be applied to people and situations coming o

cultures—Saddam Hussein was a 21st Century Arab leader, not a 15th Ce

king or Roman politician. Adda Bozeman, for example has argued that cult

to the understanding of political life:

... the challenge of understanding “others”—be they friend or foe

only after one has found out how they think. And since thought can 

precede action in all human societies, I concluded that inquiry 

should focus on mental and moral persuasions be they religious, ph

ideological; on basic values and norms within each society, and on 

dent perceptions of the other world. 11

I believe there are several ways to respond to this. First, even though Ara

cultures are different, it is not necessarily true that individual Arabs will be

mentally different ways than individual Englishmen when placed in sim

Shakespeare was dealing in many cases with basic human behavior rather t

of culture writ large. Indeed much of his work shows the failure of those no

trolling in the behavior of individuals. The medieval code of Chivalry and R

icism established widely accepted norms in the Middle Ages, very 

Bozeman’s lines; but these were often “honored in the breach,” as ind

according to their own motivation in the face of particular circumstances. 1

Second, the widespread acceptance of Shakespeare’s work across man

times suggests that he was indeed addressing elemental human behavior. 

ties he created are found in many non-Western societies, not just Occiden

Both Jonathan Bate13 and Harold Bloom14 make the case that Shakespea

read and performed in many cultures, but also that he is understood and inte

these cultures in terms of their own experience. As Bloom wrote of Shakesp

The Western Canon:

Clearly the phenomenon of surpassing literary excellence, of s

thought, characterization and metaphor that it triumphantly survi

and transportation and compels attention in virtually every culture

11 Adda Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History: From the Ancient Nea

Opening of the Modern Age, 2d ed. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002), 5. 12 Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York; Balla

1978), xix. 13 Jonathan Bate, The Genius of Shakespeare (London: Picador, 1998), 221-224. 14 Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: the Books and School of the Ages (New York

Books, 1994), 50. 15 Bloom, The Western Canon, 49.
6

Southern Africa, India, Japan, and Korea among the nonWestern regions or co

which Shakespeare’s works have been imported and interpreted. The Arab w

number of Shakespearean scholars, playwrights, and actors.16 In China, a

works did not appear until 1903, Shakespeare is widely appreciated, studied de

said to have attained the same prestige as Marx.17 Shakespeare’s introduction 

was through British rulers, but his works have now been widely adapted to Ind

and culture.18

A second criticism might be that the events Shakespeare wrote about and h

tive on them were from an age so distant from ours that they are irrelevant to ou

Shakespeare’s unequalled understanding of human behavior, his ability to repr

create,19 the current of cognition that underlies human motivation and action

importantly, his concern with the same kinds of issues, contexts, and behavior

est intelligence analysts and consumers today, make him relevant now. I thi

Tuchman had it right in her introduction to A Distant Mirror:

People of the Middle Ages existed under mental, moral, and physi

stances so different from our own as to constitute almost a foreign c

As a result, qualities of conduct that we recognize as familiar amid 

surroundings are revealed as permanent in human nature.20

The opening quotation to this paper illustrates the difficulty Shakespeare re

the task; but none have represented human behavior better, especially the b

leaders and those they led. Shakespeare’s characters appear as thinking, o

agents; it is his re-creation of thought and related action rather than his retellin

that is important.

READING SHAKESPEARE

Reading Shakespeare requires an investment of time and concentration, an

cation of interpretative and imaginative skills.21 English as we know it was 

created, not least of all by Shakespeare himself, at the time he wrote, and gr

word usage were much more flexible.22 Additionally, Shakespeare was writin

novels or history. What he wrote was intended for performance, and this has im

16 Rafiq Darraji, “Arab World,” in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, eds. Michael Do

Stanley Wells (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 20. 17 Quixin He, “China,” in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, eds. Michael Dobson and 

Wells (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, 76. 18 Ania Loomba, “India,” in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, eds. Michael Dobson a

ley Wells (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 212-213. 19 Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: the Invention of the Human (New York: Riverhead Books, 199

20 Tuchman, xiv.

21 John Russell Brown, Shakespeare and the Theatrical Event (New York: Palgrave Ma

2002), 36; Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 242. 22 McDonald, 10.
7

ification and dramatization.A single action or piece of dialogue can sta

more complicated or extended process or action. Also in Shakespeare’s p

action are often compressed or reordered in order to heighten dramatic effe

author’s point. Events that took years in historical time can follow one ano

the plays. This can be disconcerting to those used to history delivered chron

it can also heighten dramatic effect and give emphasis to related events or a

A third implication is that the plays demand active interpretation by the 

ence member.24 Reflecting the complexity and ambiguity of human beh

peare does not wrap everything up for us neatly. Neither his characters nor 

have all the answers. Just as with the real analytical issues we face today

motivation, intention, personality, behavior, and consequences are subje

interpretation and can remain unresolved.

The text segments used in this paper are taken from Internet versions of 

works. There are two Internet sites from which I have drawn texts: “The 

Bard” at http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~matty/Shakespeare and “Electronic 

Resources for Researchers” at http://www.wfu.edu/~tedforrl/shakespeare

segments of text from the plays to make the desired points. Although pullin

context has some associated risk (“Now is the winter of our discontent” 

times), quoting directly and on occasion at length serves several purpose

precisely how Shakespeare framed the situations and recreated the events a

worlds he was interested in. It permits the reader who is interested in deep

ing to become increasingly experienced with 16th century English verse a

importantly, it provides a window into a different culture, and it is useful 

gain experience looking through such windows. Many of the passages wil

than one reading for clear appreciation. I strongly recommend use of an an

the plays. The Arden, New Cambridge, or Folger texts are excellent. Whe

have chosen to simply use the play title, act number, and scene number (e

Act 5, Scene 1) as employed in the Internet versions. Where referring to 

that has several parts, as with Henry VI, I have used the convention of ci

first, as in 3 Henry VI meaning Henry VI, Part 3. Where necessary for clari

annotations in brackets within the text. 

As might be expected there is a wealth of material on Shakespeare and 

merable courses are taught on this subject at the undergraduate and graduat

is a significant body of commentary dealing with Shakespeare’s personal p

view of the political world. I found Alexander Leggatt’s Shakespeare’s Po

The History Plays and the Roman Plays, and Tim Spiekerman’s Shakespe

Realism: The English History Plays, especially useful. Three excellent wor

history plays in context are Shakespeare’s Kings, by John Julius Norwich; 

23 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 242. 24 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 242.
8

Historians by Keith Dockray. For a conventional history of the Wars of the Ros

Gillingham’s The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century E

APPROACH, FORMAT, AND SELECTION OF ISSUES

My approach to the subject matter was to first decide, based on my own 

what I thought were high-interest issues for intelligence analysts. Once 

decided, I then developed a set of questions to guide the examination of the p

that seemed to have the most relevance to the basic issue. Not all of these qu

addressed in the discussions of the plays, and some other questions arose as I 

but I have included them at the beginning of each relevant section to indic

intelligence analyst might approach a purposeful reading of a Shakespearea

main body of each section contains the discussion of the play or plays related 

under consideration.

Shakespeare’s material is so rich in political and other human behavior that 

essary to be selective.25 The themes I have chosen include: What are the essent

of successful political leaders and military commanders? Why do some lea

those with talent—fail? What do the pure pursuit of power and the exercise o

force look like? What are the human dynamics of a civil war? What is it like to 

coup as it unfolds? Why are family affairs politically important? What are t

roles of women—even in traditional societies? What is the political landscape 

These questions seem to be of enduring interest to political and leadership an

Shakespeare explored them all.

Importantly, this paper is an interpretation—my interpretation—of the p

cognitive content of some of Shakespeare’s plays. Other observers can inter

ently, see other elements, and stress other topics. A great deal depends on what 

to the reading. But there is a potential common starting point: the recognition 

significant political and human behavioral content in Shakespeare.

HEROIC LEADERSHIP: HENRY V

England ne’er had a king until his time.

Virtue he had, deserving to command:

What should I say? his deeds exceed all speech:

He ne’er lift up his hand but conquered.

1 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

In considering Henry V as a representation of heroic leadership there were a 

questions that seemed relevant to intelligence analysts. How did he prepare fo

role? How did he exercise leadership? Was he self-aware in doing this? How d

25 See for example, Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 14
9

failure and defeat? How did he manage the uncertainty he faced? How did 

responsibility that he had to carry? These questions seem relevant to any le

trivial position of power.

How does in fact an analyst evaluate a foreign leader? How can he or 

essential qualities of distant individuals, determine from the dry text of 

reports, or a few snatches of video tape, what manner of person they are 

Henry V, Shakespeare presents us with a piece of high-quality leadershi

creating in a way a purely historical text cannot an awesomely domina

Shakespeare is able to illuminate for us a remarkably effective military co

political strategist capable of winning against odds and exploiting military 

shrewd diplomacy. Henry V is a soldier-statesman in modern terms. Not 

leaders have to combine military and political skills as Henry V did, but so

ing many “warlords” of intelligence interest. Henry is in a sense a benchm

against which to measure the current and future “crops.” But, through Sh

are able to more than just read about him; we are able to enter a recreation 

world.

From the very first lines in the play, which is built around war with F

made to understand that Henry is not someone who would be welcome in t

the European Union:

Chorus

Then should the warlike Harry [Henry V], like himself,

Assume the port of Mars; and at his heels,

Leash’d in like hounds, should famine, sword and fire

Crouch for employment.

Henry V, Prologue

The first point Shakespeare makes about Henry V is that he has been 

wild youth, detailed in 1 and 2 Henry IV, proves to have been an effective tr

for a king, against all expectations based on performance. A bishop discus

transformation:

Canterbury

The courses of his youth promised it not.

The breath no sooner left his father’s body,

But that his wildness, mortified in him,

Seem’d to die too; yea, at that very moment

Consideration, like an angel, came

Henry V, Act 1, Scene 1

As becomes clear, much of this wildness was young Harry’s conscio

preparation for a leadership role, through close study of his subjects and th
10

tious when assessing new leaders, especially when there is only limited inform

past performance to go on. Henry himself warns the Dauphin, the heir to 

throne, that he has underestimated the English King:

And we [Henry] understand him [the French Dauphin] well,

How he comes o’er us with our wilder days,

Not measuring what use we made of them.

Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2

The Dauphin is unimpressed and during a French council of war makes his ca

For, my good liege, she [England] is so idly king’d,

Her scepter so fantastically borne

By a vain, giddy, shallow, humorous youth,

That fear attends her not.

Henry V, Act 2, Scene 4

Not all the French think lightly of Harry, and the French King, recalling rec

defeats at the hands of the English, responds with a much different estimate th

King of France 

Think we King Harry strong;

And, princes, look you strongly arm to meet him.

The kindred of him hath been flesh’d upon us;

And he is bred out of that bloody strain

That haunted us in our familiar paths:

Henry V, Act 2, Scene 4

The second aspect of Henry that we are made aware of is that he is a calcu

sionmaker. In the second scene we see him weighing carefully a proposed 

France. He wants justification for the invasion; he wants to know if it w

England’s interests, and he wants to know whether the risks are manageable. 

and uses information and opinion from his advisors as he makes his decision:

King Henry V 

Now are we well resolved; and, by God’s help,

And yours, the noble sinews of our power,

France being ours, we’ll bend it to our awe,

Or break it all to pieces: 

Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2 

Henry takes action based on good intelligence on the situation in Fran

understanding of the political divisions that weaken the French.

Henry also knows how to act like a king. Tim Spiekerman in his analysis 

devotes considerable attention to Henry’s calculated role playing,26 and Alex
11

good fellowHenry plays them all...His presence is commanding as 

almost any situation, or scene, he is in. His meeting with the French amb

first act demonstrates his potent charisma as he turns the Dauphin’s insul

and France:

Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on,

To venge me as I may and to put forth

My rightful hand in a well-hallow’d cause.

So get you hence in peace; and tell the Dauphin

His jest will savour but of shallow wit,

When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.

Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2

In performance, Henry’s dominance of the scene and the French amba

clearer. In scenes such as the siege of Harfleur, Henry commands the attent

and the audience:

King Henry V

I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge

Cry “God for Harry, England, and Saint George!”

Henry V, Act 3, Scene 2

And of course they do.

Henry’s ability to draw the appropriate response from his men is a dete

in his success. He is capable of winning and keeping their loyalty under eve

ficult circumstances. And he is capable of winning others to his cause and 

believe in it, not just accept it. In Tim Spiekerman’s words: “Simply put, 

men proud to be alive under his rule.”28 These traits will distinguish him gr

son, the feckless Henry VI.

Henry V is not just a shouting head-splitter; Shakespeare shows us a mul

character, one capable of both heroic display and inner doubt. Henry’s dept

evident in the scenes on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt. Shakespeare al

both Henry’s attention to the detail of the preparation for battle, as he roam

camp assessing the morale of his men, and the awesome weight of respons

as king: 

Upon the king! let us our lives, our souls,

Our debts, our careful wives,

26 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 125. 27 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 127. 28 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 150.
12

We must bear all.

Henry V, Act 4, Scene1

In the end, however, he resolves any doubts and in the face of considerable 

haps as much as five to one, rouses his men to victory. Overhearing talk of the 

the French, he gives one of the great speeches of the English language:

 This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian [a feast day] shall ne’er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember’d;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Henry V, Act 4, Scene 3

Henry is neither reckless nor intimidated by the odds. He has conducte

reconnaissance of the battlefield, disposed his forces well, understands the 

which he is going to fight, checked the condition of his troops, and demonstra

fidence in them and their leaders.

Henry V is not just a capable soldier. He proves equally adept at marshall

for the dubiously moral29 invasion of France, protecting himself against intern

and conducting effective international diplomacy. 

In the first scene in the play, as the Bishops of Ely and Canterbury weigh t

the Church from a bill in parliament aimed at seizing its property, Henry is s

deliberately30 manipulating the Church into both helping to finance and at the 

providing the moral justification for his war:

29 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 131. 30 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 130.
13

My lord, Ill tell you; that self bill is urged,

Which in the eleventh year of the last king’s reign

Was like, and had indeed against us pass’d,

But that the scambling and unquiet time

Did push it out of farther question.

Ely

But how, my lord, shall we resist it now?

Canterbury

It must be thought on. If it pass against us,

We lose the better half of our possession...

Ely

This would drink deep.

Canterbury

’Twould drink the cup and all.

Ely 

But what prevention?

Canterbury

The king is full of grace and fair regard 

Henry V, Act 1, Scene 1

The church will both justify the war and fund it.

Aware that he is, thanks to his father’s deposition of Richard II, the hei

throne,31 Henry is sensitive to direct threats to his rule from within the disaf

His thwarting of an assassination plot in Act 2, Scene 2 is based on good int

manipulation of the conspirators, and ruthless execution of the guilty. The K

the conspirators into recommending their own punishment and then pronoun

King Henry V

Touching our person seek we no revenge;

But we our kingdom’s safety must so tender,

Whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws

We do deliver you. Get you therefore hence,

Poor miserable wretches, to your death:

Henry V, Act 2, Scene 2

Henry does what is necessary to protect his throne. 

31 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 126.
14

and secures, at least temporarily, the English position in France; it also links th

families by securing the French King’s daughter as his bride. Shakespeare 

months of diplomacy in a few lines, demonstrating the completeness of Henry

French King 

We have consented to all terms of reason.

King Henry V 

Is’t so, my lords of England?

Westmoreland 

The king hath granted every article:

His daughter first, and then in sequel all,

According to their firm proposed natures.

Henry V, Act 5, Scene 2

Of course what Henry wrought through war and diplomacy was not to la

peare uses the chorus to both honor Henry and forecast the darker things to co

Chorus 

Small time, but in that small most greatly lived

This star of England: Fortune made his sword;

By which the world’s best garden be achieved,

And of it left his son imperial lord.

Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown’d King

Of France and England, did this king succeed;

Whose state so many had the managing,

That they lost France and made his England bleed:

Henry V, Act 5, Epilogue

Shakespeare nevertheless gives Henry V an enviable performance as a leade

ing potential death and defeat, rises to the occasion. Reading this play, or se

formed, presents a complex model of a powerful and capable leader playing m

model that can be used to reflect on the performance of modern leaders.

FAILURE AT THE TOP: RICHARD II

 ...they well deserve to have,

That know the strong’st and surest way to get.

Richard II, Act 3, Scene 3

Powerful leaders play for keeps. Shakespeare captured this in one line by 

King Richard III in 3 Henry VI: “Priests pray for enemies, but princes kill.” In 

cal world Shakespeare was addressing, the stakes were often life and death for 
15

cal and military leadership. There is another leadership type, which is at le

ing from an intelligence standpoint—the weak leader in a key posit

Shakespeare’s Richard II was such a ruler. According to Alexander Legga

the play, Richard is such a bad king that England itself is threatened. 32

Questions informing this section include: What are the dimensions of l

ure? What is it like to lose power? What is it like to believe yourself to be in 

actually be failing? What is it like to see yourself a failure, and know it’s yo

is it like to see your opponent win? How do your supporters see you as you 

it like to usurp a crown? Is “success ever final?”

Much of the story told in Shakespeare’s history plays deals with the su

tion: Who gets the throne and does he keep it?33 More broadly the plays are 

and losing power. Questions surrounding the security of Elizabeth I’s th

would succeed her constituted a real-life backdrop for Shakespeare’s plays

both interest and relevance. In the two tetralogies of history plays (1 Hen

VI, 3 Henry VI, Richard III; Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, Henry V

provides a wealth of characters and situations, allowing us to see into the 

behavioral elements of the succession situation. Much of Richard II is tol

Richard’s mind. And what we see is the mind of a failing leader, one who c

the full extent of his failure and to understand that he is the cause. 

Richard II fails as king in at least three areas: he fails to manage his kin

to manage the members of his affinity and he fails to manage himsel

domains of failure are interrelated, and, in the words of one scholar: “Richa

a king who fell.” 34

Richard’s mismanagement of his kingdom begins early in the play. The 

with resolving a problematic dispute between two powerful members o

Henry Bolingbroke, the Duke of Hereford and son of John of Gaunt, the 

Lancastrians; and Thomas Mowbray, the Duke of Norfolk. Richard’s mish

affair becomes a crucial element in his loss of the throne. Throughout, Ric

to see the effects of his actions on others. 35

Richard II has an opportunity to resolve the dispute through traditional 

ting it be settled by a duel between the two men. And he initially proposes 

be decided in the tiltyard, the venue for jousting: 

32 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 56. 33 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, ix. 34 Peter Saccio, Shakespeare’s English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama. (Oxford: 

versity Press, 2000), 18. 35 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 63.
16

At Coventry, upon Saint Lambert’s day:

There shall your swords and lances arbitrate

The swelling difference of your settled hate:

Richard II, Act 1, Scene 1

Instead he intervenes at the last moment to stop the duel and chooses to 

men: Bolingbroke temporarily and Mowbray permanently: 

King Richard 

For that our kingdom’s earth should not be soil’d

With that dear blood which it hath fostered;

And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect

Of civil wounds plough’d up with neighbours’ sword;

Therefore, we banish you our territories:

Richard II, Act 1, Scene 3

Richard’s motives here are complicated. On the face of it, he wants to preve

feud developing between the factions of Bolingbroke and Mowbray. Bolingb

son of John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, who, although aging, is a politic

his own right. Mowbray is the less powerful Duke of Norfolk. However, it is 

ple. Mowbray, perhaps at the direction of Richard, has been involved in the 

member of the nobility opposed to the king. If so, Richard has a clear motive 

ing his accomplice from the scene.36

Richard also has reason for getting Bolingbroke out of the Kingdom. He s

broke as a potential rival and is jealous of his popularity: 37

King Richard II 

Off goes his bonnet to an oyster-wench;

A brace of draymen bid God speed him well

And had the tribute of his supple knee,

With “Thanks, my countrymen, my loving friends”;

As were our England in reversion his,

And he our subjects’ next degree in hope.

Richard II, Act 1, Scene 4

Richard does show some concern for the potential effects of his actions. He 

he is making potential enemies, and he has Bolingbroke and Mowbray take a

they will never cooperate against the king.

36 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 60. 37 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 60.
17

ical factor, as under normal circumstance he would inherit his fathers wealt

upon his death. And it is here that Richard makes what proves to be a fatal e

wealth and ignoring well-established norms, he decides to seize John of G

Informed that John is on his death’s bed, Richard proclaims:

King Richard II 

Now put it, God, in the physician’s mind

To help him to his grave immediately!

The lining of his coffers shall make coats

To deck our soldiers for these Irish wars.

Come, gentlemen, let’s all go visit him:

Pray God we may make haste, and come too late!

 Richard II, Act 1, Scene 4

Richard is advised against appropriating the possessions of Bolingbroke:

Duke of York

Now, afore God—God forbid I say true!—

If you do wrongfully seize Hereford’s [Bolingbroke] rights,

You pluck a thousand dangers on your head,

You lose a thousand well-disposed hearts

And prick my tender patience, to those thoughts

Which honour and allegiance cannot think.

 Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1

The king coldly replies:

Think what you will, we seize into our hands

His plate, his goods, his money and his lands.

 Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1

This cavalier action strikes at one of the basic social/political norms of 

title and possessions passed to the eldest son. It was a fundamental com

“frame of order” upon which political and social life were built,38 and an 

threatened not only the individual targeted, but also every man of rank and 

land. In doing this Richard breaks the system of mutual commitments bet

and his lords, and advances the situation from one of personal antagonism 

threat to the throne.

38 F.R.H. Du Boulay, An Age of Ambition: English Society in the Late Middle Ages (New 

Viking Press, 1970), 128-142.
18

armed return to England, if not to seize the throne, at least to reclaim what i

his. He takes advantage of it and sets out on the course that will make him Hen

Richard’s difficulties in managing the kingdom are not limited to this partic

Shakespeare shows us an increasingly willful leader, no longer heeding sound 

creating opposition to his rule as he goes. Shakespeare reveals the disconte

king spreading across society as important lords discuss the political situation 

of Richard’s actions against John of Gaunt and his son:

Northumberland

Now, afore God, ’tis shame such wrongs are borne

In him, a royal prince, and many more

Of noble blood in this declining land.

The king is not himself, but basely led

By flatterers... 

Lord Ross 

The commons hath he pill’d [stripped bare] with grievous taxes

And quite lost their hearts: the nobles hath he fined

For ancient quarrels, and quite lost their hearts.

Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1

These men, and others, will rally to Henry Bolingbroke’s cause and will partic

military and political campaign that brings Richard down. And in this dialog

peare introduces the second leadership failing of Richard II, namely, his inabi

trol his supporters: “The king is not himself, but basely led by flatterers.”

Sir John Bushy, Sir John Bagot, and Sir Henry Green, portrayed as corrupt m

the king’s affinity, become lightning rods for Richard’s opponents and serve as 

his failure to ensure order within his own house. Shakespeare at the end of Act 

sketches the role of these men as symbols of Richard’s failure as a leader. In 

Henry Bolingbroke has been attempting to convince the Duke of York, one o

strongest supporters, to switch sides, and he lays out the next step in his camp

Henry Bolingbroke 

But we must win your grace [York] to go with us

To Bristol castle, which they say is held

By Bushy, Bagot and their complices,

The caterpillars of the commonwealth,

Which I have sworn to weed and pluck away.

Richard II, Act 2, Scene 3

Shakespeare uses the imagery of Bushy and Bagot devouring the garden of 

capture the contempt with which they are held. What is more, these men know 
19

broke succeeds:

Green

Besides, our nearness to the king in love

Is near the hate of those love not the king.

Bagot

And that’s the wavering commons: for their love

Lies in their purses, and whoso empties them

By so much fills their hearts with deadly hate.

Bushy

Wherein the king stands generally condemn’d.

Bagot

If judgement lie in them, then so do we,

Because we ever have been near the king.

Green 

Well, I will for refuge straight to Bristol castle:

The Earl of Wiltshire is already there.

Bushy

Thither will I with you; for little office

The hateful commons will perform for us,

Except like curs to tear us all to pieces.

Richard II, Act 2, Scene 2

Perhaps more important and interesting than Richard’s failure to manag

state or his associates, is his failure to manage himself. Again Shakespea

the failing king is not one-dimensional, but for sure Richard falls short o

level. We are able to see this failing from three directions: through the perc

hold of Richard, through his actions, and from within his own mind.

Not many perceive Richard as a great king, or even an effective one. 

points out some of the king’s imperfections in Act 2:

John of Gaunt

Methinks I am a prophet new inspired

And thus expiring do foretell of him:

His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,

For violent fires soon burn out themselves;

Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;

He tires betimes [quickly] that spurs too fast betimes;

With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:
20

Consuming means, soon preys upon itself. 

Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1

Richard’s actions are major evidence of his failing. He exercises bad judgment in 

on war in Ireland that can only be supported by increased taxes on the people and th

revealed as greedy and mendacious in his seizure of Bolingbroke’s inheritance. H

treatment of John of Gaunt as he nears death is cruel and callous, with the king deriv

pleasure from Gaunt’s passing. The king also appears indecisive and incompetent in 

to restore the military and political situation following Bolingbroke’s return to Eng

army and a seemingly just cause. Richard’s moral collapse in the face of mounting d

manifest in Act 3, Scene 2. At first the king, encouraged by others, tries to right him

Duke of Aumerle 

Comfort, my liege; remember who you are.

King Richard II 

I had forgot myself; am I not king?

Awake, thou coward majesty! thou sleepest.

Is not the king’s name twenty thousand names? 

Richard II, Act 3, Scene 2

But the flood of bad news breaks the king’s will:

King Richard II 

What say you now? What comfort have we now?

By heaven, I’ll hate him everlastingly

That bids me be of comfort any more.

Go to Flint castle: there I’ll pine away;

A king, woe’s slave, shall kingly woe obey.

Richard II, Act 3, Scene 2

Richard also sees, in own mind, his own failing, and Shakespeare’s re-cre

thought-world of a fading leader is compelling reading. Richard’s reaction to 

ing crisis is again illustrative of this as he tells his supporters:

With solemn reverence: throw away respect,

Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,

For you have but mistook me all this while:

I live with bread like you, feel want,

Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,

How can you say to me, I am a king?

Richard II, Act 3, Scene 2

Soon faced with imminent deposition, Richard’s mind is again in turmoil:
21

O that I were as great

As is my grief, or lesser than my name!

Or that I could forget what I have been,

Or not remember what I must be now!

Richard II, Act 3, Scene 3

The contrast with Henry V could hardly be greater. 

As a ruler there is little that Richard does right, and his descent is a mo

chologically complex one; but at least part of his fall is due to the rising 

Henry Bolingbroke. Shakespeare shows us the mounting aspirations of B

his ambitions progress from restoration of his property to seizure of the cr

sages illustrate this change. In Act 3, Scene 3, Bolingbroke makes his case 

his cause based on denied rights:

Henry Bolingbroke

On both his knees doth kiss King Richard’s hand

And sends allegiance and true faith of heart

To his most royal person, hither come

Even at his feet to lay my arms and power,

Provided that my banishment repeal’d

And lands restored again be freely granted:

Richard II, Act 3, Scene 3

But by Act 4, Scene 1 his supporters are telling him that the crown is his 

he believes them, as he proclaims: “In God’s name, I’ll ascend the regal thr

Shakespeare contrasts vividly the increasing incapacity of Richard wit

ambition of his emergent rival Bolingbroke. To some extent Richard’s great m

to have Henry Bolingbroke as his opponent. Shakespeare also demonstrates t

stances under which power is achieved and the character of the successor hav

about the stability of his success. Bolingbroke’s triumph creates conditions of 

bility that will plague him as the newly crowned Henry IV, and that will 

resolved until Henry Tudor deposes Richard III. Richard II, at the moment of 

points to the mechanisms of instability engendered by the irregular successio

Northumberland, thou ladder wherewithal

The mounting Bolingbroke ascends my throne...

--------------------------------------------------------------- 39

Though he divide the realm and give thee half,

It is too little, helping him to all;

And he shall think that thou, which know’st the way

39 Dashed line indicates portion of passage omitted.
22

Being neer so little urged, another way

To pluck him headlong from the usurped throne.

Richard II, Act 5, Scene 1

Finally, and perhaps most poignantly, Shakespeare lets us see inside the dep

ard’s mind as he looks back on what might have been and forward to an uncer

Now sir, the sound that tells what hour it is

Are clamorous groans, which strike upon my heart,

Which is the bell: so sighs and tears and groans

Show minutes, times, and hours: but my time

Runs posting on in Bolingbroke’s proud joy,

While I stand fooling here, his Jack o’ the clock

Richard II, Act 5, scene 5

Imprisoned by Henry IV, Richard has one last moment of royal behavior as he 

against the assassins sent to kill him:

King Richard II 

That hand shall burn in never-quenching fire

That staggers thus my person. Exton [one of the assassins], thy fierce hand

Hath with the king’s blood stain’d the king’s own land.

Mount, mount, my soul! thy seat is up on high;

Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward, here to die.

[Dies]

Richard II, Act 5, Scene 5

“THE BIOGRAPHY OF FORCE”: RICHARD III

Bloody thou art, bloody will be thy end

Richard III, Act 4, Scene 4

Richard III offers a reading in the pure exercise of force. Richard, as Shake

trays him, epitomizes another type of leadership behavior we see today: th

exhilarating, sometimes pathological, pursuit and exercise of power. King Ric

re-created by Shakespeare, provides useful images and metaphors for leaders l

Hussein, who seem in some ways to have stepped up to the highest level of i

that of the truly evil. Two of the characteristics that made Hitler fundamentall

the creativity he exhibited in causing terrible things to happen and the pleasure 

from it.40 Saddam seems to fit this profile, as does Shakespeare’s Richard III.

40 Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (New York: 

House, 1998), 212-216.
23

throne? What is it like to be willing to do anything to win it? Can one enjoy 

gaining of it? Can a person be evil and still have admirable qualities? Wha

on the exercise of power and the use of force? What are the implications of 

nacle of leadership?

From the first lines of Richard III, we are involved in Richard’s quest fo

remote observers but as intimate witnesses to his thinking. We become 

degree in his thoughts and deeds. Richard enjoys what he does, and on som

too: “Richard co-opts us as fellow torturers, sharing guilty pleasures with 

son that we may join the victims, if the dominant hunchback detects any 

complicity.” 41

Richard III is about power, its acquisition, use, and enjoyment for perso

in a context where the primary actor is largely unconstrained by social or p

Shakespeare’s Richard is not just another successful pretender to the thron

broke in Richard II. Richard is in a class by himself, and he has the tools 

for widespread malevolence. For Richard, even as the Duke of Gloucester

political and military figure in his own right. Once seated on the throne, h

mischief only expands. 

We first meet Richard in 2 Henry VI as the Duke of Gloucester. Despi

deformity (hunch or “crook” back) he is a skilled and determined com

father’s (the Duke of York) cause, and a major instrument in the destruction 

trians. Midway through 3 Henry VI Shakespeare reveals to us what is on Ri

So do I wish the crown, being so far off;

And so I chide the means that keeps me from it;

And so I say, I’ll cut the causes off,

3 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 2

By the end of this play Richard’s intentions are even clearer as Shakespea

his mind to us:

I have no brother, I am like no brother;

And this word “love,” which graybeards call divine,

Be resident in men like one another

And not in me: I am myself alone.

Clarence, beware; thou keep’st me from the light:

3 Henry VI, Act 5, Scene 6

41 Bloom, Shakespeare, 71.
24

political, and the military. In all his kingdom there is none to match him un

actions create opposition forces potent enough to defeat him.

In the opening soliloquy of Richard III we are made to understand that Ric

ciates his task and his tools. We see his perceptions of the situation he faces

tives, and the means he intends to use to achieve them: 

Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,

Have no delight to pass away the time,

Unless to spy my shadow in the sun

And descant on mine own deformity:

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,

I am determined to prove a villain

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,

By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,

To set my brother Clarence and the king

In deadly hate the one against the other:

Richard III, Act 1, Scene 1

Our first glimpse of Richard’s ability to wield power is his exercise of his 

rial skills to lay the plots that will move his cause ahead. As the play begins h

moving to eliminate his brother Clarence as a potential successor to King Edw

An even more intimate use of personal power follows this maneuver 

brother. Richard clearly enjoys the exercise of his powers of psychological d

For him the application of power is not simply necessary to achieve a goal; it 

ished in its own right. This is evident in his relationship with Anne, the wife 

castrian Prince Edward, whom Richard has murdered in 3 Henry VI. Richard’

of Anne is purely an exercise in personal power. While Richard’s delight is b

stage or in the cinema, it still comes through clearly in text. Again Shakespea

Richard’s innermost thinking: 

Was ever woman in this humour woo’d?

Was ever woman in this humour won?

I’ll have her; but I will not keep her long.

Richard III, Act 1, Scene 2

It is manifest that he is going to enjoy the taking. 

Richard’s conspiratorial power in the political realm is vast and virtually 

The first half of the play is essentially the working out of his plots to attain the 

first he operates, essentially alone, spinning a web of lies and deceits that entan

principal characters:
25

I do the wrong, and first begin to brawl.

The secret mischiefs that I set abroach

I lay unto the grievous charge of others...

Richard III, Act 1, Scene 3

Richard rapidly gains adherents, especially the ambitious, although not q

gent or ruthless, Duke of Buckingham. Those who do not side with Richard 

aside or removed physically. His sheer exuberance in the working out 

breathtaking.

In late medieval England, the acquisition and use of power depended 

construction and maintenance of webs of personal allegiance—or, as w

“affinities.” As Richard gains adherents, his capacity for more ambitious str

combination of the members of his own affinity with the powerful Duke o

and other lords provides Richard the political and military clout he needs 

succession. 

The 1995 cinema version of Richard III shows the energy and exciteme

ters to great advantage.42 Richard, played by the incomparable Ian McK

cohorts are shown marauding through the English political system like a b

evolved predators. They buffalo, bluster, and bamboozle their way to the 

where they have to, and hugely enjoying themselves. Roaring around L

powerful cars and fascist-style uniforms, they almost seem like upper class 

the former ruling elite of Iraq. The scenes of Richard as king dealing wit

nates are jarringly familiar for those who have watched videotape of Sad

publicly.

Once in power, on the throne, conspiracy and manipulation work less 

ard. Attempts to use Buckingham to further the murder of Edward’s h

Edward IV’s queen Elizabeth is unwilling to sacrifice her daughter on Rich

bed to retain her privileged position. Ultimately he will have to resort to pu

itary power—to deal with the emerging threats to his crown. In this arena 

out skill, however, and even with key supporters deserting him he prove

commander. 

Like some modern dictators, Richard is not without admirable qualities. 

and he is courageous. Richard’s power of decision is shown at multiple poi

In Act 4, Scene 3 we see Richard at his best, responding to threats from mu

and directions:

Then fiery expedition be my wing,

Jove’s Mercury, and herald for a king!

Come, muster men: my counsel is my shield;

42 United Artists Pictures, Richard III, 1995.
26

Richard III, Act 4, Scene 2

At the end of the play Richard shows his personal courage in the Battle of 

When one of his loyalists pleads with him to withdraw, the king responds, fam

Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,

And I will stand the hazard of the die:

Richard III, Act 4, Scene 2

Richard goes down fighting, not running.

Was Richard evil? Is this even a relevant question for an analyst? Both Ric

lytical powers and his capacity for evil are displayed in Act 4, Scene 2 as he ca

next move:

I must be married to my brother’s daughter,

Or else my kingdom stands on brittle glass.

Murder her brothers, and then marry her!

Uncertain way of gain! But I am in

So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin:

Tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye.

Richard III, Act 4, Scene 2

He is shocking, he knows it, and he enjoys it. In this play Shakespeare gives u

intimacy with evil that other reporting cannot provide. Watching, or reading, 

you have the sensation of being in, or close to, a mental world like that of Sadda

Richard, again as Shakespeare has chosen to portray him, is a high-ranking c

sociopath. For him the ends justify the means (“I’m in so far in blood, that sin w

sin”). In the telling of the story, we are allowed to see the consequences of evi

Much of what Richard does, while advancing his goals on one level, is sim

undermining them on another. The murders, broken promises, threats, and vic

create a growing body of opposition to his rule, one that becomes powerful 

defeat him when the circumstances are right, although even here Shakespeare dr

uation in a nuanced way. It is not so clear that Richard will lose at Bosworth F

cally, it takes a foreign-supported invasion and treachery, by the powerful Stan

to defeat him. And at the end he still has his stalwarts who are willing to die wit

Shakespeare has given us a particular re-creation of Richard III. Some 

argue that the historical Richard was actually quite a nice fellow. Nevertheles

out this play Richard is depicted as multi-dimensional. He is not a cardbo

Shakespeare gives us both the “evil” Richard and the admirable one, demons

leaders are difficult subjects of analysis, elusive of easy categorization, and 

are both evil and competent can be formidable. Richard’s complexity shou

conscious of the difference between an evil or disagreeable target and an ea
27

leaders image, and that may not emerge in intelligence reporting.

Richard, like Saddam, dominates. All of the other characters in the play a

thoughts and actions. Even in defeat Richard towers over the other participan

gle. The only character with anything like his presence is Queen Margar

Henry VI, who casts curses like Richard spins plots. She is a central figure in 

of Henry VI and the Wars of the Roses, and her powers will be explored later 

CIVIL WAR: 1, 2, 3 HENRY VI

I will stir up in England some black storm

Shall blow ten thousand souls to heaven or hell;

And this fell tempest shall not cease to rage

Until the golden circuit [crown] on my head...

2 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 1

Civil Wars and related phenomena draw much attention from politica

analysts. The complex environments from which they emerge, the role of 

and the unintended consequences they bring, are subjects of great intelli

Shakespeare’s three plays built around the England of Henry VI raise cha

tions for all analysts involved with such events: What are the key dynamics 

How does violence expand? How does violence become personal? How d

violence evolve as a civil war emerges? How is violence justified, to the 

group? What kinds of behavior and actions does it produce? What do the 

the civil war process begins and progresses? What do they do in response? 

had a significant history of civil conflict, Shakespeare had a wealth of ma

with. The enduring analytical questions raised by the Wars of the Roses, t

15th Century England, make his “case studies” relevant to analysts today.

A central element in the Henry VI trilogy is the expansion of violence. W

as personal ambition finishes as full-blown warfare between rival dynasti

tens of thousands of troops in the field, extended military campaigns, and 

Shakespeare furnishes us with a model of how a personal contest for power 

civil war.

In the initial act of 1 Henry VI Shakespeare sets out the forces that will b

in the wake of Henry V’s death. Opportunity is provided by Henry VI’s you

nine months), and the plot is driven forward by the desire of ambitious men 

As related by Shakespeare, the forces contending around the throne are: the 

resented by the Duke of Gloucester, the church represented by the Bishop 

and several personally ambitious nobles. These men will bring Henry V’

den” to wrack and ruin and ensure the loss of England’s lands in France

develops for us the enormous costs, personal and national, of unconstr

ambition. 
28

we see unfold is not a simple contest for influence or power by two sides but 

eted one, in which temporary alliances are made, personal commitments brok

quest for political advantage overrules social and political norms. Witchcraft, 

treason are all brought to play. 

One of the first conflicts developed is between the Duke of Gloucester, the 

tor during Henry VI’s minority and representative of the old order, and Winche

senting the political presence of the church:

Gloucester

The church! where is it? Had not churchmen pray’d,

His [Henry V] thread of life had not so soon decay’d:

None do you like but an effeminate prince,

Whom, like a school-boy, you may over-awe.

Bishop of Winchester

Gloucester, whate’er we like, thou art protector

And lookest to command the prince and realm.

Thy wife is proud; she holdeth thee in awe,

More than God or religious churchmen may.

1 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

Shakespeare displays for us not only the political (state vs. church) rival

Gloucester and Winchester, but also the deep personal animosity between th

that exacerbates the political conflict. A few lines later, as Winchester speaks 

we are able to see his true political ambition:

Bishop of Winchester

Each hath his place and function to attend:

I am left out; for me nothing remains.

But long I will not be Jack out of office:

The king from Eltham I intend to steal

And sit at chiefest stern of public weal.

1 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

As the play progresses, words become deeds, and in Act 1, Scene 3 the fir

between the factions of the duke and the bishop breaks out in the streets of Lo

chester now defines Gloucester as a mortal enemy:

Bishop of Winchester

Abominable Gloucester, guard thy head;

For I intend to have it ere long.

1 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 3
29

dynastic terms and in terms of personal influence. With the exception of Gl

of these people is personally admirable. The author cautions us against too 

fication with the characters in a power struggle; as in Lebanon during its ci

tians are not necessarily the “good guys” and honorable words can cover ra

Act 2, Scene 4 introduces the beginning of the central political conflict 

the first tetralogy (1,2,3 Henry VI, and Richard III), the contest between 

York and Lancaster. Over the course of the four plays, this emerges as th

Roses. Shakespeare develops this slowly at first with relatively minor incid

with gathering speed and expanding violence.

A legal dispute between Richard Plantagenet (York) and the Earl of S

caster) sets events in motion. When Somerset loses a legal appeal he resor

violence:

Richard Plantagenet

Now, Somerset, where is your argument?

Somerset

Here in my scabbard, meditating that

Shall dye your white rose in a bloody red.

1 Henry VI, Act 2, Scene

In a scene of escalating taunts and personal insults Richard and Somerset b

terest of enemies. Shakespeare uses the powerful image of red or white rose

taking of sides:

 Somerset

Ah, thou [Richard] shalt find us ready for thee still;

And know us by these colours for thy foes,

For these my friends in spite of thee shall wear.

Richard Plantagenet

And, by my soul, this pale and angry rose,

As cognizance of my blood-drinking hate,

Will I for ever and my faction wear,

Until it wither with me to my grave

Or flourish to the height of my degree

1 Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 4

In the space of a few lines two powerful and deeply divided factions are 

that the basis of armed power at that time was the number of retainers th

could muster, the military basis for the coming war was also being esta
30

Wars of the Roses.

In the last acts of 1 Henry VI the third set of forces that will drive Englan

war is introduced: Suffolk’s ambition to be the principal advisor to the king, 

cated by his emergent relationship with Margaret of Anjou, one of the most fo

Shakespeare’s female characters. Suffolk is an early supporter of Somerset b

his own game, aiming not to sit on the throne but to stand next to it.

We first notice Suffolk in the rose selection scene as he lines up with the La

but by Act 5, Scene 3, he is emerging as a contender for influence. Here we w

in his first encounter with Margaret of Anjou, and it is easy to see that this w

relationship:

Margaret

Say, Earl of Suffolk—if thy name be so—

What ransom must I pay before I pass?

For I perceive I am thy prisoner.

Suffolk [aside]

How canst thou tell she will deny thy suit,

Before thou make a trial of her love?

Margaret

Why speak’st thou not? what ransom must I pay?

Suffolk [aside]

She’s beautiful, and therefore to be woo’d;

She is a woman, therefore to be won.

1 Henry VI, Act 5, Scene 3

Suffolk arranges for her to become Henry VI’s queen, although that developme

deter what soon emerges, in Shakespeare’s telling, as a passionate relationship

Margaret’s eventual marriage to Henry VI is one of the key developments 

sify the conflict; increasingly she will provide the ambition, leadership, and co

presence that the King lacks. In the words of one scholar: ...Margaret, while 

shadow role of queen, will control the substance of power in the second and th

the play. 43

Shakespeare makes clear that much of this descent into violence is due to th

of the king, both his personal weakness44 and the political weakness of his hou

on the usurpation of Richard II’s throne by Henry Bolingbroke. But the author 

43 Michael Hattaway, Introduction to The First Part of King Henry VI, The New Cambridge 

peare, ed. Michael Hattaway (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 28. 44 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 24-25.
31

ual desire, and the violation of political and social norms as instrumental. 

illuminates for us the complex web of causes, motives and emotions that sto

Disentangling these in an ongoing or developing civil conflict can be a fo

lenge for analysts.

In 2 Henry VI, Shakespeare offers us an escalating and expanding inter

which the contestants begin to appeal to outside forces for assistance. The 

state is shaken, and England suffers irretrievable territorial losses in France 

diplomacy and military failure abetted by personal rivalries. Shakespeare in

these are some the consequences of civil war.

Political violence increases as factions solidify and extreme measu

including treason, murder and resort to witchcraft, a kind of appeal to o

Margaret becomes Queen and rapidly emerges as the real power. The loss 

France, through Suffolk’s questionable marriage diplomacy and contention 

ability for military defeats drives the contestants for power into still deeper 

In the first act of 2 Henry VI, Shakespeare further develops the conflicts e

Henry VI. While the King and the growing faction of Suffolk are most pleased 

riage, Gloucester and his faction are appalled at the terms and the rising influe

and the Queen. Reading the terms of the marriage contract, Gloucester is dism

O peers of England, shameful is this league!

Fatal this marriage, cancelling your fame,

Blotting your names from books of memory,

Razing the characters of your renown,

Defacing monuments of conquer’d France,

Undoing all, as all had never been!

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene1

And Gloucester’s ally York takes a swipe at Suffolk who has been raised 

Duke:

York

For Suffolk’s duke, may he be suffocate,

That dims the honour of this warlike isle!

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

Shakespeare illustrates the intricate, even intimate, nature of intense c

power and influence, revealing the divisions and undercurrents that exist w

tions. First Somerset, of Suffolk’s faction, raises concerns about Cardinal B

Somerset 

Cousin of Buckingham, though Humphrey’s [Gloucester] pride

And greatness of his place be grief to us,
32

His insolence is more intolerable

Than all the princes in the land beside:

If Gloucester be displaced, he’ll be protector

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

Then it is the turn of Gloucester’s faction, as York reveals his own ambitions:

 Then will I raise aloft the milk-white rose,

With whose sweet smell the air shall be perfumed;

And in my standard bear the arms of York

To grapple with the house of Lancaster;

And, force perforce, I’ll make him [Henry VI] yield the crown,

Whose bookish rule hath pull’d fair England down

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

In the lines preceding those above, Shakespeare exposes the cognitive proces

York justifies his treason to his king and Gloucester:

The peers agreed, and Henry was well pleased

To change two dukedoms for a duke’s fair daughter.

I cannot blame them all: what is’t to them?

’Tis thine they give away, and not their own...

--------------------------------------------------------

So York must sit and fret and bite his tongue,

While his own lands are bargain’d for and sold....

--------------------------------------------------------

Anjou and Maine both given unto the French!

Cold news for me, for I had hope of France,

Even as I have of fertile England’s soil.

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

We see York’s perceptions of the situation, how he defines it, and then what h

do about it. We enter into the realm of his “intentions.”

Through the rest of this play, Shakespeare concentrates on the intense plot

the principal characters, setting the stage for the decisive struggle between the 

York and Lancaster. The escalating rivalry ultimately leads to the ruin of Glo

wife Eleanor, Suffolk, and Beaufort (Winchester). All but Eleanor die violent 

ted by their opponents, and her fate—disgrace and exile for practicing wit

hardly better. This thinning out of those competing for influence focuses the 

those who want to keep (Margaret) or gain (York) the crown and their affinitie

While Margaret works to strengthen her husband’s hold on the throne, and 

own power, York stirs rebellion and moves toward outright insurrection. In Act 
33

the throne:

York

Now, my good Lords of Salisbury and Warwick,

Our simple supper ended, give me leave

In this close walk to satisfy myself,

In craving your opinion of my title,

Which is infallible, to England’s crown.

Salisbury

My lord, I long to hear it at full.

Warwick 

Sweet York, begin: and if thy claim be good,

The Nevils [Warwick’s family] are thy subjects to command.

2 Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 2

York is successful, but he knows that it will require conspiracy and war 

goal, and that proves no deterrent:

York 

We thank you, lords. But I am not your king

Till I be crown’d and that my sword be stain’d

With heart-blood of the house of Lancaster;

And that’s not suddenly to be perform’d,

But with advice and silent secrecy.

2 Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 2

York also knows that he must especially maintain the support of the powe

Shakespeare lays out the bargain between the two men:

Warwick 

My heart assures me that the Earl of Warwick

Shall one day make the Duke of York a king.

York 

And, Nevil [Warwick], this I do assure myself:

Richard [York] shall live to make the Earl of Warwick

The greatest man in England but the king.

2 Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 2

Together York and Warwick represent a power capable of challenging the 

mutual commitment between the two men signals civil war between the h

and Lancaster.
34

York from the immediate political stage by having him sent to Ireland. But Yo

turn this to his own advantage, using the opportunity to build his own milita

and to lay plots against the king:

Whiles I in Ireland nourish a mighty band,

I will stir up in England some black storm

Shall blow ten thousand souls to heaven or hell;

And this fell tempest shall not cease to rage

Until the golden circuit [crown] on my head, 

2 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 1

What York does is to initiate Cade’s Rebellion, which eventually comes to 

throne. That York is willing to contemplate such measures shows the depth o

tion. Shakespeare also exposes the extent of York’s cynicism in a soliloquy:

Say that he [Cade] thrive, as ’tis great like he will,

Why, then from Ireland come I with my strength

And reap the harvest which that rascal sow’d;

For Humphrey [Gloucester] being dead, as he shall be,

And Henry put apart, the next for me.

2 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 1

The ultimate failure of Cade’s rebellion and Margaret’ success, along with h

Somerset, in holding the throne for her husband, sets the stage for the first ou

of the Wars of the Roses, at Saint Alban’s. This is a victory for the Yor

Although the Lancastrians are routed they are not destroyed, with the King 

escaping. 

Shakespeare uses two mechanisms to drive the escalation of violence that is 

the wake of St. Alban’s. The killing of key Lancastrian officers, including So

Clifford, sets the stage for even greater personal violence as revenge is sought 

He also introduces characters that will carry the conflict forward: York’s son

Richard of Gloucester, and Clifford’s son, who will prove a determined foe o

of York. The relatively simple personal rivalries of the first acts of 1 Hen

become a full-blown civil war extending across generations. All of this is fully 

3 Henry VI.

In 3 Henry VI the courses of action set in the first two plays follow their 

civil war becomes increasingly bloody as both sides have trouble gaining deci

tage and holding it. Attempts at political compromise fail. Loyalty is dishon

players switch sides; as one authority put it, “in the world of Henry VI lo

exception, not the rule.”45 The atrocities pile up with echoes of modern civ

Shakespeare depicts the results of personal ambition carried to its ultimate 

The Wars of the Roses tear England apart.
35

opens with the Yorkists celebrating Henry VIs defeat at Saint Albans and 

sonal exploits in killing their foes: 

Edward

Lord Stafford’s father, Duke of Buckingham,

Is either slain or wounded dangerously;

I cleft his beaver [helmet] with a downright blow:

That this is true, father, behold his blood.

Montague

And, brother, here’s the Earl of Wiltshire’s blood,

Whom I encounter’d as the battles join’d.

Richard

Speak thou for me and tell them what I did.

[Throwing down Somerset’s head]

York

Richard hath best deserved of all my sons.

But is your grace dead, my Lord of Somerset?

3 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

They all have rather enjoyed it. Later, however, in a scene where a father ki

a son kills his father in battle, Shakespeare portrays the personal tragedies t

imposing on the English people. 46

In fact the conflict becomes more generalized as the Lancastrains reso

earth policies and seek help from France and Scotland. Uncharacteristically 

pious Henry VI himself declares his willingness to do whatever it takes to h

King Henry VI

Think’st thou that I will leave my kingly throne,

Wherein my grandsire and my father sat?

No: first shall war unpeople this my realm;

Ay, and their colours, often borne in France,

And now in England to our heart’s great sorrow,

Shall be my winding-sheet.

3 Henry VI, Act 1 Scene 1

45 Milton Crane, Introduction to Henry VI: Part Three, The Signet Classic Shakespeare 

Penguin, 1968) Stanley, xxviii. 46 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 20.
36

times, earning a reputation for treachery, which will be paid off in Richard III. 

after York’s eldest son Edward assumes the throne, even Warwick will prove d

In fact the later part of the play begins to reveal the internal rivalries withi

of York that will bring it down. Richard and Clarence have their own ambitions

ard begins to plot almost immediately against his other brother, the new

Edward IV. In Act 3, Scene 2, Shakespeare reveals Richard working it out in h

[Richard] 

I can add colours to the chameleon,

Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,

And set the murderous Machiavel to school.

Can I do this, and cannot get a crown?

Tut, were it farther off, I’ll pluck it down

3 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 2

Richard, in keeping with the deepening conflict, has made the transition fr

honorable war to pursuing armed ambition. He will be able to break all the 

society because all the rules have already been broken. What constituted th

“frame of order,” or the existing political rules of the game, had been well and 

tered. All of this seems very current.

Over the course of the three plays Shakespeare illustrates how—in the fa

strained ambition—political, social, and personal norms are violated. Marga

enjoys the killing of her bitter opponent York:

Queen Margaret 

Off with his head, and set it on York gates;

So York may overlook the town of York.

3 Henry VI, Act 1 Scene 4

And he vividly demonstrates the results in terms of the personal and national c

war. He also lays bare the cognitive processes by which the principal character

ular York, convince themselves and others of the rightness of their actions. M

people do not see themselves as evil. They are upholding some value. They 

their actions as either necessary or moral. Only in Richard III do we get to see 

that is truly evil, one who needs no justifications.

Direct contact with momentous events is difficult to achieve from typ

gence reporting. The three parts of Henry VI are loaded with images, met

meaning for analysts. They graphically portray a civil war, from its early r

political ambitions of a few men and women to the collapse of civil society 

spread conflict. Shakespeare presents us very powerful images illuminati

means to be caught up in such developments. Reading the three parts of Hen
37

and personal circumstances.

TO PLOT A COUP: JULIUS CAESAR

Such men as he be never at heart’s ease

Whiles they behold a greater than themselves,

And therefore are they very dangerous.

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2

A move to unseat a standing ruler or leadership group can be a mom

Even a failed coup is capable of producing far-reaching and unanticipated 

For Shakespeare and his high-ranking audience a sudden change of leaders

possibility, with potentially dire results. For intelligence analysts, Julius 

many pertinent questions about the processes of a coup and especially th

individuals caught up in one: When is a coup justified? What ration

employed? When is the right time? How do the plotters see one another? H

sition arise? What are the internal dynamics? What is the range of behavi

principals? What are the consequences, intended and unintended?

A sudden move by a band of insiders to topple a government has an in

appeal to analysts. A coup can combine shock, uncertainty, instability, viol

unforeseen results in ways that other political events do not. Shakespeare 

this in Julius Caesar. And he gives it to us primarily from the perspective o

spirators and their opponents. We see not only what they see, but also what t

how their perceptions and thoughts connect to the action of the coup and it

Perhaps the first question about a coup is why do those mounting it feel the 

It is usually uncertain, and often risky. Shakespeare provides us insight into som

vation and thought processes involved. In the first act, second scene we see Bru

his own uncertainty about plotting against Caesar to the lead conspirator Cass

Cassius,

Be not deceived: if I have veil’d my look,

I turn the trouble of my countenance

Merely upon myself. Vexed I am

Of late with passions of some difference,

Conceptions only proper to myself,

Which give some soil perhaps to my behaviors;

But let not therefore my good friends be grieved—

Among which number, Cassius, be you one—

Nor construe any further my neglect,

Than that poor Brutus, with himself at war,

Forgets the shows of love to other men.

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2
38

intends to become king, posing a threat to all their freedoms:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Men at some time are masters of their fates:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2

Cassius is successful in moving Brutus closer to a decision to move against 

understands his target and sets out on an “information warfare” campaign wit

its target:

[Cassius Aside]

I will this night,

In several hands, in at his windows throw,

As if they came from several citizens,

Writings all tending to the great opinion

That Rome holds of his name; wherein obscurely

Caesar’s ambition shall be glanced at:

And after this let Caesar seat him sure;

For we will shake him, or worse days endure.

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2

Cassius has measured his target well, and Brutus soon convinces himself that C

go:

Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,

Would run to these and these extremities:

And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg

Which, hatch’d, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,

And kill him in the shell.

Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1

Shakespeare takes us through a series of dialogues and soliloquies that lay o

nitive process of Brutus committing to Cassius’ enterprise. Brutus, fed by Cas

campaign, builds (“Fashion it thus”) a rationalization for a coup, even thoug

Caesar has done nothing yet to justify his assassination.47 We are able to see t

as it unfolds in Brutus’ mind.

47 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 144.
39

Cassius have worked it out in detail, and Shakespeare gives ample indicatio

is plotting on multiple levels. Others, like Casca, seem swept up in the dram

The conspirators are apparently willing to take risks and commit murder, 

the basis of no more than the belief that Caesar will be corrupt.

Perhaps more importantly, Shakespeare is demonstrating the complexity 

a coup both at the individual and group levels. Casca is relatively simple; B

sius are much deeper. We also are able to observe a phenomenon evident i

that of individuals moving along a spectrum of commitment at different pa

fully committed, at least from the beginning of the play; but others, espe

must be brought along.

In any coup timing is important, and in Julius Caesar we can see this. F

ning of the plot there is a clear sense of urgency, as the conspirators feel t

act before Caesar is made king. Shakespeare begins to convey this sense of 

second scene of the first act where, as Cassius and Brutus discuss whether o

justified, they hear the crowd shouting and express their concern that Caes

been crowned:

Brutus 

What means this shouting? I do fear, the people

Choose Caesar for their king.

Cassius 

Ay, do you fear it?

Then must I think you would not have it so.

Later the conspirators learn that Caesar will be crowned the next day, gi

urgency to the plot. In addition, the plot runs the risk of discovery. Caesar i

(Act 1, Scene 2) that he faces danger. In Act 2 Scene 3 he is given specific 

plot including the names of the conspirators:

Artemidorus 

Caesar, beware of Brutus; take heed of Cassius;

come not near Casca; have an eye to Cinna, trust not

Trebonius: mark well Metellus Cimber: Decius Brutus

loves thee not: thou hast wronged Caius Ligarius.

There is but one mind in all these men, and it is

bent against Caesar. If thou beest not immortal,

look about you: security gives way to conspiracy.

The conspirators need to act before Caesar is crowned and before they are r

timing is also affected by Caesar’s schedule. They know he will be in public 

where on the Ides of March.
40

are able to see this and how this complexity shapes the coup and its aftermat

band is not of “one mind.” Shakespeare provides clear images of both what the

what others think of them. Caesar, already suspicious of Cassius, provides a 

of a suspected conspirator:

I do not know the man I should avoid

So soon as that spare Cassius...

-------------------------------------------------

Such men as he be never at heart’s ease

Whiles they behold a greater than themselves,

And therefore are they very dangerous.

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2

Cassius provides his view of the conspirator Casca:

You are dull, Casca, and those sparks of life

That should be in a Roman you do want,

Or else you use not. You look pale and gaze

And put on fear and cast yourself in wonder,

To see the strange impatience of the heavens:

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 3

And Casca and Cassius weigh Brutus as an asset for the conspiracy:

Casca

O, he sits high in all the people’s hearts:

And that which would appear offence in us,

His countenance, like richest alchemy,

Will change to virtue and to worthiness.

Cassius 

Him and his worth and our great need of him

You have right well conceited.

Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 3

Brutus himself holds strong opinions of other potential conspirators. As Ci

cussed Brutus makes his feelings clear:

O, name him not: let us not break [involve] with him;

For he will never follow any thing

That other men begin.

Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1

As the conspirators arrive at his house, Brutus reveals his view of the collective 
41

Shamest thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,

When evils are most free? O, then by day

Where wilt thou find a cavern dark enough

To mask thy monstrous visage? Seek none, conspiracy;

Hide it in smiles and affability:

Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1

These scenes suggest the range of personalities within the plot, the diver

the plotters have of one another, and potential lines of cleavage in the cons

this is not a selfless “band of brothers.” They are using one another. In conte

situations, detail and nuance of this nature can be undetectable, giving 

appearance of a solid block of actors moving in unison. Analysts should 

this kind of nuance and reflect it in their assessments.

 Once the coup is underway what happens, and what are the consequenc

first processes evident as the coup unfolds is its tendency to expand to inclu

bers and more targets. As the conspirators meet on the eve of the coup the

should be killed along with Caesar. Cassius favors getting rid of Mark Anto

argues against it, trying to limit the violence:

Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,

To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,

Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;

For Antony is but a limb of Caesar:

Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.

Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1

Another process evident in the play is the plot’s accelerating mome

apparent in the rush of events—discussions, deceptions, meetings—the fal

of key elements, and the gathering of support. The plot rapidly gathers spe

to a head. Again this mirrors contemporary situations. Whatever the prepa

some point a coup shifts into high tempo.

The plot climaxes with Caesar’s assassination, and at first the conspi

have won. They immediately try to stabilize the situation and ensure that the

of what happened is put out to the public:

Cinna

Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!

Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets.

Cassius 

Some to the common pulpits, and cry out

“Liberty, freedom, and enfranchisement”!
42

People and senators, be not affrighted;

Fly not; stand stiff: ambition’s debt is paid.

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1

But the results are not what the plotters expected, and Shakespeare gives us 

unintended consequences. Most important of these consequences is the rapid 

of organized resistance led by Mark Antony.

Brutus’ inability to weigh people properly, first evidenced in his failure to 

Cassius, and second in his failure to understand himself, has led Brutus to un

Antony. Brutus not only does not agree to kill Antony, but in the opening mom

coup he also gives Antony a chance to rally Caesar’s supporters. Just as C

suaded Brutus that Caesar had to go, Antony persuades Brutus that Caesar nee

send off. Brutus, believing that he is the master of the situation and of Anto

despite Cassius’ misgivings. This is a colossal error:

Cassius 

Brutus, a word with you.

[Aside to Brutus]

You know not what you do: do not consent

That Antony speak in his funeral:

Know you how much the people may be moved

By that which he will utter?

Brutus 

By your pardon;

I will myself into the pulpit first,

And show the reason of our Caesar’s death:

What Antony shall speak, I will protest

He speaks by leave and by permission,

And that we are contented Caesar shall

Have all true rites and lawful ceremonies.

It shall advantage more than do us wrong.

Julius Caesar, Act 3, scene 1

For a leader of a dangerous enterprise Brutus proves an inept judge of men. A

man general said of the failed July 1944 bomb plot to kill Hitler, “This was no

go about it.” The sought-after political “precision strike” becomes a civil war.

Standing alone over Caesar’s corpse, Antony shows where he stands on th

assassination:

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,

That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
43

That ever lived in the tide of times.

Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1

Antony goes on in the same soliloquy to forecast the second major unin

quence of the coup, the rapid emergence of instability and the descent into 

Over thy wounds now do I prophesy...

---------------------------------------------------

A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;

Domestic fury and fierce civil strife

Shall cumber all the parts of Italy...

---------------------------------------------------

And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,

Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice

Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1

Antony of course is one of the principal agents of the onset and spread 

Alexander Leggatt’s words: “Brutus wanted a tight, clear, finished action. A

ken the play open and set history going in new, unpredictable directions.”

body is cooling Antony is alerting his ally Octavius to what has happened. 

ful rhetoric he turns the people against the conspirators:

Antony

Moreover, he [Caesar] hath left you all his walks,

His private arbours and new-planted orchards,

On this side Tiber; he hath left them you,

And to your heirs for ever, common pleasures,

To walk abroad, and recreate yourselves.

Here was a Caesar! when comes such another?

First Citizen

Never, never. Come, away, away!

We’ll burn his body in the holy place,

And with the brands fire the traitors’ houses.

Take up the body.

Second Citizen

Go fetch fire.

48 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 158.
44

Pluck down benches.

Fourth Citizen

Pluck down forms, windows, any thing.

[Exeunt Citizens with the body]

Antony

Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot,

Take thou what course thou wilt!

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2

With the arrival of Octavius in Rome, Antony quickly begins to organize the 

As for the conspirators, Shakespeare gives us a brilliant image of a failed coup

Servant 

 I heard him [Octavius] say, Brutus and Cassius

Are rid like madmen through the gates of Rome.

Antony

Belike [perhaps] they had some notice of the people,

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2

The final unintended consequence for the plotters is their destruction by th

forces of Ocatvius, Antony, and their ally Lepidus. Along the way Caesar’s po

have conducted a bloody purge of their opponents. In one scene we overhear 

his allies compiling the list of those to be killed, including their own relatives:

[Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus, seated at a table]

Antony

These many, then, shall die; their names are prick’d [written].

Octavius

Your brother too must die; consent you, Lepidus?

Lepidus

I do consent—

Octavius 

Prick him down, Antony.

Lepidus

Upon condition Publius shall not live,

Who is your sister’s son, Mark Antony.
45

He shall not live; look, with a spot I damn him.

Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 1

Here Shakespeare suggests the spreading circle of violence attendant to civ

Julius Caesar is the very model of a coup. Shakespeare illuminates man

tial elements of a plot to overthrow a ruler, and in particular he focuses on t

ment, the behavior of the people involved. In this play Shakespeare 

powerfully affecting images of humans caught up in extreme political viol

internal struggles in the minds of the conspirators to the fickleness of 

“blown like a feather” by the compelling and competing rhetoric of Brutu

Through the play we see the mix of personalities and motives of both the co

their opponents, and their swiftly changing fortunes. Shakespeare draws ou

cesses and dynamics as if using a hi-liter on history. He suggests that th

choose between Brutus and Antony and foreshadows the coming splinteri

ony-Octavius-Lepidus triumvirate. But most importantly, he signals that i

people and what they do that count. What Shakespeare has done in Juliu

provide a case study in the complexity of human behavior in a coup. This 

plexity challenges analysts; especially analysts dealing with only limited in

coup is prepared or unfolds in a rush of events. 

FAMILY MATTERS: HENRY VI AND RICHARD III

In your bride you bury brotherhood.

 3 Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 1

Leadership and political analysts often must deal with the behavior o

small groups or “inner circles,” either as central political figures in their o

close advisors to a principal leader. Family members, even extended family 

often be part of or associated with these groups. Wives, brothers, sons a

uncles, aunts, cousins can be found in, or on the edges, of many inner circ

mining their roles and relative influence can be difficult. Shakespeare, c

society in which family mattered greatly, was sensitive to its role in politic

raise important questions: Is “family” important in the politics of “tribal” o

eties? How do the relatives of leaders affect the political situation? Are fam

cal power inseparable in dynastic or traditional societies? What are the co

poor family political management?

The England Shakespeare dealt with in the history plays was dominated 

large families. To a considerable degree family politics was the politics of 

Stanley, Percy, and Neville families, to name a few, were extended, line

nuclear, and were principal political factions. They controlled key positions 

ment and church, wealth in the form of land, military force, and marriage
46

ical, military, and economic landscapes, and dynasties unto themselves.

One such family was the Woodville’s, whose ambitions lie behind much o

in Richard III. In 3 Henry VI we first encounter this family as a factor throug

marriage of Elizabeth Woodville to Edward IV, the Yorkist successor to Henry 

beth, a young widow and one of the great beauties of the age, was pursued a

Edward after some struggle. With her came three problems. Her marriage to E

the cause of a personal rift with Warwick, and the related collapse of a poten

with France. She was a member of a numerous and ambitious family for whi

property, and spouses had to be found. And most importantly she produc

change in the succession picture. 

We first see Elizabeth as Lady Grey; the widow of Sir Richard Grey, who 

fighting for the Yorkist cause. She is appealing to Edward, attempting to rega

band’s property seized by the Lancastrians. Edward, a great womanizer, is 

order to have her he must marry her. This seemingly frivolous action causes 

go over to the Lancastrian side, sets the increasingly ambitious Richard, Duke 

ter to plotting, and opens the door to her family’s close access to the king and 

age. From the start Edward’s failure to manage his relationship with Elizab

family creates fateful consequences.

The first of these is the break with Warwick. The acknowledged “kingmaker

is on a mission to France to secure Edward’s political marriage to the sister of 

king. Learning of Edward’s secret marriage, Warwick explodes:

Warwick 

King Lewis, I here protest, in sight of heaven,

And by the hope I have of heavenly bliss,

That I am clear from this misdeed of Edward’s,

No more my king, for he dishonours me,

But most himself, if he could see his shame.

3 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 3

The immediate result is Warwick’s defection to the cause of Henry VI and Ma

long-term effect is to significantly prolong and intensify the struggle betwee

Lancaster.

The second outcome of the marriage is the creation of great tension betwe

tion represented by Queen Elizabeth and her family and a coalition of powerfu

jealous of the rising power of the Woodvilles. In Act 4, Scene 1 of 3 Henry 

peare depicts the developing animosity caused by Edward’s provision to his w

of significant marriages, and the titles and property that go with them. Beaut

gent, and ambitious, Elizabeth has sought these favors for her family, and her 

bred powerful enemies. Responding to criticism that he has favored a Woodvi

of the most loyal of the Yorkist supporters, William Lord Hastings, Edward rep
47

Ay, what of that? it was my will and grant;

And for this once my will shall stand for law.

3 Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 1

Edward’s brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, responds:

Gloucester

And yet methinks your grace hath not done well,

To give the heir and daughter of Lord Scales

Unto the brother of your loving bride;

She better would have fitted me or Clarence:

But in your bride you bury brotherhood.

3 Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 1

And brother Clarence adds:

Clarence

Or else you would not have bestow’d the heir

Of the Lord Bonville on your new wife’s son,

And leave your brothers to go speed elsewhere.

3 Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 1

The rise of the Woodvilles creates rivalries within the family and between 

other powerful lords that Richard will be able to exploit. These are realized 

The third major consequence of the marriage is to extend Richard’s par

path to the throne. The bachelor King Edward had no legitimate heirs, lea

possibility that one of his two brothers, Clarence or Richard, could succ

male offspring of Edward and Elizabeth would have primacy in succession

hoped that Edward would remain without legitimate heirs:

[Richard]

Ay, Edward will use women honourably.

Would he were wasted, marrow, bones and all,

That from his loins no hopeful branch may spring,

To cross me from the golden time I look for!

3 Henry VI, Act 3, Scene 2

Richard must now count not only his brother Clarence as a potential succ

his own claim, but also any sons born to Edward and Elizabeth. This will l

III to the coup against Edward’s son and legitimate heir.
48

brothers. One, Clarence, defects to the Lancastrian side. The other, Richard, plot

course to the throne. Reacting to Clarence’s defection, Richard reflects on his po

Gloucester [Aside]

Not I:

My thoughts aim at a further matter; I

Stay not for the love of Edward, but the crown.

3 Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 1

In the first act of Richard III, Richard’s plots are already well advanced

exploiting the animosity building around the Queen as a means of stirring 

Edward:

Gloucester 

Why, this it is, when men are ruled by women:

’Tis not the king that sends you to the Tower:

My Lady Grey his wife, Clarence, ’tis she

That tempers him to this extremity.

Was it not she and that good man of worship,

Anthony Woodville, her brother there,

That made him send Lord Hastings to the Tower,

From whence this present day he is deliver’d?

We are not safe, Clarence; we are not safe.

Richard III, Act 1, Scene 1

Hastings, newly “delivered” from the Tower, pledges to repay the Woodvi

imprisonment:

Hastings

But I shall live, my lord, to give them thanks

That were the cause of my imprisonment.

Richard III, Act 1, Scene 1

Richard will use Hastings as a pawn in his plot to seize the throne and destroy 

ville family.

The Woodville’s, however, do not represent an easy target. The Queen’s b

sons are powerful lords and churchmen in their own right and resist Richard

siderable Woodville family forces him to extend his campaign to such leng

begins to generate opposition even from his loyalists. Buckingham, his mos

co-conspirator until Richard is crowned, equivocates when asked to murde

young sons and heirs and eventually moves to armed opposition.

Elizabeth Woodville emerges as the strongest and most powerful member 

ily. Her drive to protect Edward’s male heir against Richard is doomed; but in 
49

to manage the family of his Queen, Richard is ultimately unable to defeat i

Shakespeare reveals how families become important political factors in t

especially in lineal or dynastic societies. The broad social organizations that 

sent provide networks of political, economic, military and personal influen

operate discreetly or openly to influence events. Understanding them is impo

etrating them with traditional intelligence sources and methods can be challe

WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN? MARGARET OF ANJOU IN HE

Away with her; go, bear her hence perforce.

3 Henry VI, Act 5, Scene 5

No leadership analyst can afford to ignore the role women play in politi

ditional, so-called male-dominated, societies. Mothers, wives, sisters, daug

ers, can exercise profound influence over men and events, even where the

formal positions of power. For analysts there are many important questions 

Can women play important political roles in traditional societies? What a

and what are their limits? What tools and methods do women have avail

they actually exert power and influence? Under what circumstances can t

political players in their own right? Do women have any special advantages

explored these questions in a society where few women held formal power

had enormous power.

Shakespeare’s plays frequently depict women with important political ro

nized the often-decisive influence they exerted over male characters, as wiv

or ambitious men, as mothers seeking improved positions for their child

seeking security, and as powers in their own right. This power can be expre

mate form of political behavior, the politics of the dinner table and the 

sometimes, the role of the woman can become dominant and public. 

Without doubt one of the strongest female characters in Shakespeare 

Anjou, Henry VI’s wife and queen, but also his spine and brain. She is in 

female version of Richard III. Over the course of the three parts of Henry V

the leader of the Lancastrian party, its strategist, its driving force. She e

weapon at her disposal—intellect, position, and sex—to achieve her goals

destruction of her rivals; and, although she does not fight in the physica

present at the important battles and shares in the risks and rewards. In c

humiliates and kills her rival York. When her husband Henry physically and 

lapses, she virtually divorces him and assumes leadership of her son’s caus

castrian forces.

From the beginning Shakespeare shows that Margaret is politically ast

tious. In 1 Henry VI we watch as she manipulates Suffolk’s passion for he
50

tion, and in the face of the strong opposition of some elements of the English n

In 1 Henry VI we first see Margaret as Suffolk’s prisoner as a result of 

France. Because of the relative poverty of her father’s Kingdom of Anjou sh

minor player in the political situation. But she reads Suffolk precisely. While 

drawn to him, she sees and grasps the political opportunity he presents. Suffol

tion with her quickly leads to his successful attempt to arrange a marriage to H

a society in which the marriages of the powerful were almost always political 

romantic acts, this marriage gives Margaret the chance to be a great political 

she takes it.

In 2 Henry VI Margaret emerges as a power. In Act 1, Scene 3 she shows she 

the measure of the king. Addressing Suffolk, she says:

His champions are the prophets and apostles,

His weapons holy saws of sacred writ,

His study is his tilt-yard, and his loves

Are brazen images of canonized saints.

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 3

She has already indicated to Suffolk that she sees this situation is to her personal di

Queen Margaret

What shall King Henry be a pupil still

Under the surly Gloucester’s governance?

Am I a queen in title and in style,

And must be made a subject to a duke?

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 3

Margaret wants more than just the trappings of power, like Richard III s

exercise it. She is now fully engaged in the internal political contest and its bit

rivalries, with Suffolk as her chosen weapon:

Suffolk

Madam, be patient: as I was cause

Your highness came to England, so will I

In England work your grace’s full content

2 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 3

The first target of this weapon is Eleanor, wife of the Duke of Gloucester. In a 

both personal and political, Margaret and Suffolk use Eleanor’s ambition to 

and weaken her husband.

As the king declines, Margaret becomes more powerful. By Act 4, Scene 

lamenting the fates that made him king:
51

Was ever king that joyd an earthly throne,

And could command no more content than I?

No sooner was I crept out of my cradle

But I was made a king, at nine months old.

Was never subject long’d to be a king

As I do long and wish to be a subject.

2 Henry VI, Act 4, Scene 9

Margaret, however, is emerging as a commanding figure. Her liaisons wit

and, after his death, with Somerset, provide her powerful male allies. In th

tary defeat by the Yorkists at the Battle of Saint Albans, she presses the 

lyzed Henry to flee the field to preserve their cause for another day:

Queen Margaret

If you be ta’en, we then should see the bottom

Of all our fortunes: but if we haply scape,

As well we may, if not through your neglect,

We shall to London get, where you are loved

And where this breach now in our fortunes made

May readily be stopp’d.

2 Henry VI, Act 5, Scene 2

Here Margaret demonstrates both her power of decision and her political 

She is the rising leader of the Lancastrian forces. 

Margaret increasingly turns on her husband, investing all of her energy 

son’s future. After learning Henry has agreed that York will succeed him 

own son, Margaret declares to Henry her intention to carry on, even lead, th

The northern lords that have forsworn thy colours

Will follow mine, if once they see them spread;

And spread they shall be, to thy foul disgrace

And utter ruin of the house of York.

Thus do I leave thee. Come, son, let’s away; 

Our army is ready; come, we’ll after them.

3 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 1

Margaret loses the struggle with the Yorkists in the end, but not b

exhausted all possible means, including alliances with Warwick, one of Yo

and with France. Even the deaths of her husband and son do not deter her

much like Richard III. Margaret stands as a model of a talented and amb

able to exercise great power and influence, even in a traditional society whe

and military roles of women were sharply circumscribed by custom and law
52

LOYALTY AND HONOR IN KING JOHN

But for a kingdom any oath may be broken:

I would break a thousand oaths to reign one year.

3 Henry VI, Act 1, Scene 2

Loyalty and honor are critical to the operation of any organization or ent

one, even the most powerful rulers in single party states, can rule alone. They 

others at least for information and the carrying out of orders; and they depend 

live up to their commitments, to act honorably. When neither loyalty nor ho

counted on, rule becomes difficult and affairs of state chaotic. 

Fluctuations in loyalty and honor are important elements in many political a

situations. The ability of intelligence analysts to accurately read both the loya

ers and other principal actors and their strength of commitment can be vital in 

the course of political and military situations. Analytical questions focusing 

and honor include: Are loyalty and honor absolute or contingent? What is th

loyalty to political leaders? How is loyalty won and kept? What are the bounda

alty? Is anyone totally loyal or completely honorable? Why do people bre

change sides in a political contest? What justifications do they employ? W

political and military consequences of dishonorable actions? 

Shakespeare explored the concept of loyalty, and the larger concept of ho

sively in his histories and tragedies, not least of all because these were central 

the politics of his time. The 16th Century Catholic-Protestant divide alon

ample reason for divided loyalty. Throughout his plays, Shakespeare presents 

multifaceted phenomenon. He provides examples of individuals from those 

death—Desdemona in Othello—to the most treacherous—Cassius in Julius 

Iago in Othello. However, loyalty is not just for heroes. Even villains, some of 

ard’s henchmen in Richard III for example, remain loyal to the end. He als

people who find issues of loyalty ambiguous or troubling, difficult to resolv

face critical decisions on where their loyalty lies. Shakespeare’s implicit argum

loyalty and honor are often both complex and contingent, as opposed to the th

ing cultural “myth” that they were absolute.

King John, set in medieval England where honor was literally worn on th

the powerful, and oath taking was taken seriously, illustrates the conditionalit

in the face of a complex reality. Few of the powerful in King John live up to 

word or established norms. Personal loyalty and honor are shredded by a hos

including self-aggrandizement, appeals to higher goals, and tactical necessity

must have made the powerful around Elizabeth and James I more than a little 

Loyalty in King John is strained by multiple elements in the personal and p

uations of the key actors. There is an unresolved succession issue. John vio

norms when he seemingly has his nephew and potential competitor for the th
53

between king and God. The political and military fortunes of John and his o

and fall, offering the opportunity to switch sides for presumed advantage. J

for rule fluctuates, causing others to weigh their political options. Both p

and political developments test family bonds. Thirteenth-century Englan

through a period of political turbulence, and loyalty and honor were early, 

casualties.

In the opening scene, the first issue presented is the unresolved success

cipitated by the death of King Richard the Lionhearted.49 The contest ha

rarily resolved in John’s favor; but powerful forces are gathering in sup

nephew Arthur. John knows that until he can resolve the succession qu

always face divided loyalty and sit on an insecure throne. Receiving an am

the King of France, John hears where France stands:

Chatillon 

Philip of France, in right and true behalf

Of ------------------------------------------------

Arthur Plantagenet, lays most lawful claim

To this fair island and the territories,

To Ireland, Poictiers, Anjou, Touraine, Maine,

Desiring thee to lay aside the sword

Which sways usurpingly these several titles,

And put these same into young Arthur’s hand,

Thy nephew and right royal sovereign.

King John, Act 1, Scene 1

Here Shakespeare illustrates the dangers posed by a potential rival for the 

whom the loyalties of others may become attached. In this case it is the F

trying to exploit the situation by allying themselves with Arthur.

In the first act, Shakespeare introduces another of the elements challen

loyalty in King John, the developing split between king and the Catholic C

ing of his coming expedition against France the king states:

King John

Our abbeys and our priories shall pay

This expedition’s charge.

King John, Act 1, Scene 1

John sees the church in England as an asset to be used for the purposes o

church in Rome sees the state and the church in England as subordinate to 

tain matters, including some worldly ones. 

49 Spiekerman, Shakespeare’s Political Realism, 40.
54

John seizes church property, appoints church officials subservient to him, 

church direction. Rome excommunicates him, places all England under interd

ding the practice of the sacraments), and aligns itself with John’s foreign an

enemies. In a time when the moral and political power of the church was co

this conflict places loyalties to the king under extreme pressure. In response, 

and commoners change sides. 

Shakespeare uses the dramatic device of the fate of Arthur to suggest the w

personal bonds to the king. Initially John’s nobles are loyal, recognizing that 

ests are tied to his: “our weal, on you depending.” Over time however, they b

cerned that his obsessive need to secure the throne threatens all their int

directly threatens Arthur. Arthur’s death while in John’s custody leads some o

key followers to break with him. Announcing Arthur’s demise, John is met w

on the part of the powerful lords Salisbury and Pembroke:

Salisbury 

It is apparent foul play; and ’tis shame

That greatness should so grossly offer it:

So thrive it in your game! and so, farewell.

Pembroke 

Stay yet, Lord Salisbury; I’ll go with thee,

And find the inheritance of this poor child,

His little kingdom of a forced grave.

That blood which owed the breadth of all this isle,

Three foot of it doth hold: bad world the while!

This must not be thus borne: this will break out

To all our sorrows, and ere long I doubt.

King John, Act 4, Scene 2

While the Lords Pembroke and Salisbury react emotionally to the murder o

Arthur, they also calculate that John’s action will lead to unrest and confli

threatening their interests.

The citizens of the town of Angiers show the shrewd nature of the commoner

by both the English and the French, fighting in support of Arthur’s claim to the 

ask the two “kings” to do battle to prove which is most deserving of their loyalty

King John 

Acknowledge then the king, and let me in.

First Citizen

That can we not; but he that proves the king,

To him will we prove loyal: till that time

Have we ramm’d up our gates against the world.

King John, Act 2, Scene 1
55

kingdoms to head off the sack of their town. There is no loyalty to king h

interest.

The marriage arrangement is in fact a win-win situation for all, except 

the concept of honor. The French abandon Arthur and his cause for purp

Meanwhile John, to remove Arthur as a problem, agrees to give up to the 

stantial portion of his kingdom. Shakespeare leaves it to one Philip Faulcon

the lesson:

Mad world! mad kings! mad composition [agreement]!

John, to stop Arthur’s title in the whole,

Hath willingly departed with a part,

And France, whose armour conscience buckled on,

Whom zeal and charity brought to the field

As God’s own soldier, rounded in the ear

With that same purpose-changer, that sly devil,

That broker, that still breaks the pate of faith,

That daily break-vow, he that wins of all,

Of kings, of beggars, old men, young men, maids,

Who, having no external thing to lose

But the word ‘maid,’ cheats the poor maid of that,

That smooth-faced gentleman, tickling Commodity [self-interest],

King John, Act 2, Scene 1

The church itself is not above the exercise of statecraft. The pope and hi

both spiritual and temporal weapons against John for a time. On the brink o

hands of the French, the church, and his disaffected lords, John makes his 

pope and the pope turns on his French allies. Shakespeare makes it clear 

changed is John’s need for allies, not John himself:

Scene I King John’s palace.

Enter King John, Cardinal Pandulph, and Attendants]

King John

Thus have I yielded up into your hand

The circle of my glory.

[Giving the crown]

Cardinal Pandulph 

Take again

From this my hand, as holding of the pope

Your sovereign greatness and authority.

King John 
56

And from his holiness use all your power

To stop their marches ’fore we are inflamed.

Our discontented counties do revolt;

Our people quarrel with obedience,

King John, Act 5, Scene 1

And for its part the Church has made its own calculation:

Cardinal Pandulph 

It was my breath that blew this tempest up,

Upon your stubborn usage of the pope...

----------------------------------------------------

Upon your oath of service to the pope,

Go I to make the French lay down their arms.

King John, Act 5, Scene 1

One can only doubt that these oaths will stand any more firmly than the others

Nor are the French free from “situational honor.” In an attempt to seize th

England, and in defiance of Cardinal Pandulph and the Church, the French Da

to murder his English allies once they have served their purpose, only to be pr

betrayed by one of his own “honorable” nobles.

In King John, as well as in other plays, Shakespeare suggests that the po

scape of loyalty and honor is a rough one. While established social and cultura

personal commitments are elements of that landscape, shifting circumstance

personal objectives, and dynamic social relationships also shape it. The challen

lysts is to determine where individuals are located on that landscape, and h

which directions they are moving over it. And most of the time analysts will b

with both incomplete information and limited understanding of the situation.

CONCLUSION

Shakespeare was writing political psychology before the term was invent

wealth of political and human factors explored in his work is vast. The subject

rial covered above represent only a fraction of what is in the Shakespeare cano

Shakespeare’s histories and tragedies cover a wide range of political a

human behavior, from the most deeply personal—the crystallization in Richar

of the world he has lost—to the most intensely political—Brutus’ coup aga

and the civil war that follows. Perhaps most importantly, Shakespeare gives u

into the cognitive and emotive elements of politics, what Harold Bloom 

“Shakespeare’s uncanny power in the rendering of personality.”50 This window 
57

be more selfconscious about what we ourselves think about what we are o

Not least, Shakespeare allows us to recognize the incredible richness of 

tal and behavioral worlds of leaders, worlds we can see only indistinctly, if 

our traditional collection means. Shakespeare provides us with images, m

models we can use to help shape and enrich our consideration of the issues 

are concerned with today. He cannot tell us what Saddam Hussein is t

moment, but he can help us to make out what it is like to think in ways an

similar to those of a Saddam Hussein. In re-creating the inner world of the 

leaders, he can assist us to peer inside the mind of our current “targets” and 

Political, strategic, or leadership analysts are asked to provide insight i

people who are remote: remote in time, perhaps; probably remote geograph

turally; and definitely remote in experience. Shakespeare reveals to us a f

ture, one with different beliefs about religion, family, women, loyalty 

culture where “it” is about men not laws. Where the norms governing beh

quite different from our own. We ask our analysts today to enter into equal

tures and divine the behavior of key political and military figures. What ana

claim to have managed an extended family or tribe, led a nation into war, bu

alliances, faced defeat as the leader of a losing army, plotted a coup, justifi

been betrayed by his closest associates, or murdered his way to a throne? 

have, at least in a figurative way, but for most these are beyond their profe

ence. So how may we enhance our understanding of what it is like to be in s

to place our selves in like positions, to achieve empathy with our targets 

“see” the current of cognition and sense the emotions involved in fateful ev

peare provides a “distant mirror” by which to illuminate this remoteness. A

read widely in Shakespeare to enlarge their sense for political behavi

enhancing their library of leadership images, metaphors and models. Ana

read directly in Shakespeare to examine particular issues, as was done in th

ard III has something to say about Saddam Hussein, and King John somet

loyalty of Saddam’s lieutenants.

Implicit in Shakespeare, however, is the understanding that we can p

fully understand our targets of interest. This is an important lesson for poli

ership analysts and the consumers of their products. As Alexander Leggatt 

a character’s end may be known, his full nature is sometimes hidden from 

involvement in public life, demanding as it does the manipulation of appea

the character’s inner self somewhat concealed from us, and perhaps even 

This is a useful caution against hard and fast intelligence judgments about fo

Shakespeare does something else in the telling of his tales. He brought 

and “sense making” to a fine art. He was able to convey on multiple levels h

50 Bloom, Shakespeare, 6. 51 Leggatt, Shakespeare’s Political Drama, 242.
58

and the fullness of the subject matter. He appealed to both the reason and the 

his audience, and his characters and contexts are vivid and compelling.

Finally, Shakespeare provides lessons in the power of quality writing. In th

Russ McDonald:

The skill at encoding information—and encoding so much information—

merizing verbal medium is one of the gifts that made Shakespeare a greater dra

any of his contemporaries... 52

As we go down the road to “digital production” and “knowledge packets,” co

are fundamentally antithetical to story telling and sense making, it will be i

important that quality writing continue to be one of the essential elements by 

measure quality analysis.

As his skills as a playwright matured, Shakespeare hardly wasted a word. 

of words have been written about Saddam Hussein, but none convey the chara

a person as well as these few lines spoken by Shakespeare’s Richard III:

...I am in

So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin:

Tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye.

Richard III, Act 4, Scene 2

52 McDonald, Shakespeare and the Arts of Language, 8.
59

In addition to Arden, Cambridge, Signet, Folger and Internet versions of t

plays, the author has consulted the following:

Bate, Jonathan. The Genius of Shakespeare. London: Picador, 1998.

Bevington, David. Shakespeare. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.

Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riv

1998.

________. The Western Canon: the Books and School of the Ages. New Yo

Books, 1994.

Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Po

and More. New York: Dell Publishing, 1990.

Bozeman, Adda B. Politics and Culture in International History: From the 

East to the Opening of the Modern Age. 2d edition. New Brunswic

Publishers, 2002. 

Brown, John Russell. Shakespeare and the Theatrical Event. New York: P

Millan, 2002.

Crane, Milton. “Introduction to Henry VI Part Three,” The Signet Classic 

New York: Penguin, 1968.

Darragi, Rafiq. “Arab World,” in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. M

and Stanley Wells, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Dockray, Keith. William Shakespeare, the Wars of the Roses, and the Histor

ton, S.C.: Tempus Publishing Inc., 2002.

Du Boulay, F.R.H. An Age of Ambition: English Society in the Late Midd

York: The Viking Press, 1970.

Gillingham, John. The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fift

England. London: Phoenix Press, 2001.

Hattaway, Michael. “Introduction,” in The First Part of King Henry VI, T

bridge Shakespeare, Michael Hattaway, ed. Cambridge: Cambrid

Press, 1990. 

He, Quixin. ”China,” in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Michae

Stanley Wells, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Leggatt, Alexander. Shakespeare’s Political Drama: the History Plays a

Plays. New York: Routledge, 1988. 
60

Stanley Wells, Stanley, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, 2d ed., Robert M. Adams, trans. New Y

Norton & Company, 1992.

McDonald, Russ. Shakespeare and the Arts of Language. Oxford: Oxford 

Press, 2001.

Norwich, John Julius. Shakespeare’s Kings: The Great Plays and the History 

in the Middle Ages. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.

Renaissance Films, “Henry V,” 1989.

Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil. 

Random House, 1998.

Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare’s English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Dram

Oxford University Press, 2000.

Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998

Spiekerman, Tim. Shakespeare’s Political Realism: The English History Plays

State University of New York Press, 2001.

Tuchman, Barbara W. A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. New Yo

tine Books, 1978.

United Artists, “Richard III,” 1995.
61

In October 2002, Jeffrey B. White completed a thirty-four year career wi

Intelligence Agency, having served in a wide variety of senior analytical 

positions. Among the positions he held were: imagery analyst, military ca

lyst, current intelligence analyst, senior analyst for the Arab-Israeli confro

Chief of the Middle East current intelligence division, Chief of the Offi

East/Africa Military Assessments, and Chief, Regional Military Assessme

is now an associate with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a

consultant.

While with DIA, Mr. White was involved as an intelligence officer in 

East crisis from the 1968 Arab-Israeli War of Attrition to the developing con

in 2002. He led numerous crisis intelligence response groups within the age

those dealing with the Lebanese civil war, Israeli-Syrian conflict in Lebano

tions against Libya, U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf, multiple Ira

1994 to 2000, and the conflict with Afghanistan. 

Mr. White holds a BA in Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia, 

International Affairs from George Washington University, both with Near E

He has received numerous awards for service as an intelligence officer, incl

retary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, the National Int

tinguished Service Medal, and the DIA Director’s awards for both Ex

Meritorious Civilian Service.
63

Occasional Papers

Unclassified papers are available through <www.ntis.gov>; selected pa

able through the U.S. Government Printing Office <www.gpo.gov>.

 1. Classified paper.

2. Getting Intelligence Right: The Power of Logical Procedure, Capt (U

S. Brei, 1996.

 3. An Office Manager’s Guide to Intelligence Readiness, Russell G. Sw

 4. Classified paper.

 5. A Flourishing Craft: Teaching Intelligence Studies, Papers Prepared f

1999 JMIC Conference on Teaching Intelligence Studies at Colleges 

ties, 1999.

 6. Intelligence Essentials for Everyone, Lisa Krizan, 1999.

7. Intelligence Analysis in Theater Joint Intelligence Centers: An Exp

plying Structured Methods, MSgt (USAF), Robert D. Folker, Jr., 200

8. Dangerous Assumption: Preparing the U.S. Intelligence Warning S

New Millennium, Jan Goldman, 2000.

9. The Creation of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency: The 

Oversight Role, Anne Daugherty Miles, 2001.

10. Shakespeare for Analysts: Literature and Intelligence, Jeffrey White
Occasional Paper Number Ten

JOINT MILITARY

INT

E

LLIGENCE COLLEGE

1

9

6

2

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
C M Y CM MY CY CMY K

pports and encourages research

ns and improves support to

nal consumers

 and others whose research on intelligence issues

 College through its Center for Strategic Intelligence

schools and to the Intelligence Community, and

hnical Information Service (www.ntis.gov). Selected

(www.gpo.gov).

 to the Center for Strategic Intelligence Research

ntelligence and occasionally civilian academic or

er Col Tim Christenson (USMCR) and Mr. James

aluable comments on drafts of this paper. Manuscripts

ssed to Defense Intelligence Agency, Joint Military

 Bolling AFB, Washington, DC 20340-5100.

Russell.Swenson@dia.mil, Editor