ABSTRACT
Discussions of Shakespeare’s 2 Henry IV generally revolve around two themes: the transformation of Prince Hal and the prince’s rejection of Falstaff. Hal’s “betrayal” of Falstaff highlights the uneasy but necessary negotiation of establishing state legitimacy and justifying private betrayal. This troubling exchange, however, stops short of engaging with the more complex elements of trust and distrust that are still in operation outside of Hal’s transition from prince to king. Here, I refer to the disastrous peace negotiations between John of Lancaster and Northern rebels in Act IV. This chapter argues that the negotiation of truth/trust in the play is far more nuanced and complex than it appears; political and moral stakes are played out not only between the king-to-be and his unruly companions butalso among subjects, loyal and rebellious. Off-stage, similar tensions were recorded when English officials negotiated with Irish rebels at the height of the Nine Years’ War (1594–1603). In fact, a remarkably well-documented instance of such a case can be traced to the same year that 2Henry IV was staged. My discussion draws direct references from John’s seemingly shocking treatment of the rebels in Shakespeare’s play to shed light on the problems that plagued the 1597 truce negotiation between O’Neill and crown representatives. The exchange between crown representatives and rebel leader(s) – historically and theatrically – exposes the problems of delegated authority, which essentially destabilizes perceptions of truth, assumptions of trust, and conceptions of truce that uphold the image of royal authority. In examining the difficulties faced by the Irish rebels and crown negotiators in 1597, this chapter uses actual practices of truce negotiations as a framework to explore how structures of truth/trust contribute to the making and unmaking of political and historical realities in 2 Henry IV. A draft of this essay has been published in Critical Survey.
