Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
AND SHAKESPEARES
CONCEPT OF KINGSHIP
J.K.
INTRODUCTION (1)
INTRODUCTION (2)
INTRODUCTION (3)
INTRODUCTION (4)
The first tetralogy (1589-94?) deals with dynastic struggles known as the Wars of
the Roses. It consists of the plays Henry VI part 1,2 and 3, and Richard III. The
second tetralogy begins with the deposition of Richard II, continues with
the reign of Henry IV, and culminates in the glorious victories of Henry V.
Out of Richard's deposition immediately proceeds, not the cruelest of
England's tyrants, but the greatest of English kings. What Shakespeare and
his contemporaries probably feared most when the Lancastrian plays were being
written was the accession of a weak king, one incapable of maintaining order,
under whose reign powerful noble factions would again wage civil war in England.
Those who support the providential view of history believe that Shakespeare was
influenced by so-called Tudor myth. According to this myth, at the beginning
prosperity is destroyed by the deposition of Richard II, and Gods curse falls upon
England; then follow the conscience-stricken Henry IVs attempts to preserve his
realm, the brief victory of Henry V, followed by the endless rebellions during Henry
VIs reign which culminate in the tyranny of Richard III. And then, at the end of the
cycle, Henry of Richmond appears, Gods curse is removed, and order is
restored.The concept of inherited sin is alien to Shakespeare. The notion that the
whole nation was doomed to suffer for the sin of its monarch is even more alien to
Shakespeare, who is so profound a realist to subscribe to the metaphysics so
characteristic of feudalism.
INTRODUCTION (5)
Not only in his history plays, but also in the Roman plays and
plays such as Hamlet, King Lear, Measure for Measure, Macbeth,
The Tempest and so on, Shakespeare investigates various issues
such as: Who has the right to be king? Can a king do wrong? What
is the nature of kingship? What values are essential in a ruler? Are
all who have power susceptible to abuse of that power and to
what extent?
Hamlet (1600-1) is set at the court of an elective monarchy at
war with its neighbours, where the current king has murdered his
predecessor. Measure for Measure (1602-3) imagines the
issues presented when the legitimate ruler of a city state hands
over the reins of power to a deputy in order to study his realm as
a secret observer; King Lear (1605-6) concerns the disastrous
attempt of one of Shakespeare's most powerful kings, who has
united and pacified Britain, to secure the succession on his own
terms. Macbeth (1605-6) deals with the problems of reestablishing legitimate government after the reign of a bloody
usurper, and directly confronts the question of what gives a
monarch his authority. The Tempest stages a series of issues
relating to the question of the monarch's authority, from Gonzalo's
pious meditation on governing the island, to Prospero's transfer of
power at the end of the play.
RICHARD II
RICHARD II (2)
Through greed, complacency, and naivete, Richard loses the support of the
people and incurs their contempt, and, subsequently, leaves himself
vulnerable to plots and attacks. When he returns from Ireland and finds out
that Bolingbroke is in arms against him, Carlisle and Aumerle encourage him
to collect his strength and take action against his enemies. God will aid the
lawful king if he knows how to fend for himself. But Richard will not assert his
power; the sole protection he calls upon is the divinity of his kingship Is
not the kings name twenty thousand names? or:
Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king.
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord. (3.2.53-56)
There is, moreover, in Richard II some evidence that Shakepeare had come to
regard the very notion of the divinity of kings with some degree of
skepticism. Richard repeats the basic doctrines of Tudor absolutism as
accurately and as often as perhaps any other character in the whole range of
Elizabethan drama.
The issue the nobles are faced with is what to do with a monarch who has
committed serious and habitual offenses, on whose crown, A thousand
flatterers sit (2.1.100).
RICHARD II (3)
The entire play is dominated by the single figure of Richard of Gloucester. In his
great soliloquy in the preceding play,41he had already established himself as the
cynical villain-hero who would "set the murderous Machiavel to school,"advancing
through villainy after villainy until he seized the crown. Richard is the logical
outcome of his society; a hypocrite, yet more sincere in his self-awareness than
those he ruins and deceives; a villain who is also the hero of the chronicle-cycle. In
the Wars of the Roses, Shakespeare shows that men, Richard being one of them,
are governed by their passionsby ambition, anger, animosity and revenge. Henry
VI is the regulating principle of traditional society. He is mercy, pity, love, human
kindness, reinforced by God's ordinating fiat. It is this which Richard kills. Right up
to Henry's murder Richard has been a typical member of the Yorkist group. The
conflict about the throne has been conducted as a dynastic rivalry. The
killing of the King marks the transcendence of this code. The dynastic issue is left
behind, and it is now a question of Richard's personal ambition. Richard's skill at
manipulation can be seen at once, as he maneuvers his brother George, Duke of
Clarence, to the Tower. He then wooes Lady Ann over the corpse of her father-in-law
(Henry VI). Both the Duchess and the Queen have felt, and recognize Richards
demonic nature which will bring about the annihilation of their house. A reflection of
the same presentiment is given in the conversation of the three citizens who are
lamenting the kings death, regretting the extreme youth of the new monarch, and
utterly distrusting Richard of Gloucester, O! full of danger is the Duke of
Gloucester! (2.3.27), says one of these citizens.
The dangers of that society become apparent when we learn that Lord Rivers
(brother) and Lord Grey (son), as well as Sir Thomas Vaughan, have been taken
prisoner to Pomfret Castle, where many others, including Richard II, have died.
Hastings: I'll have this crown of mine cut from my shoulders Before I'll see the
crown so foul misplac'd. Richard has created an atmosphere of mistrust in
which everyone is suspect.
Richard still needs mass support. He knows that the power of the people
should not be ignored by someone who seeks to exercise power of his own.
The commoners may at times warrant contempt, but never should they be
overlooked.The king-making strategy that Richard and Buckingham masterfully
design and then implement is a brilliant example of political manoeuvring and
manipulation. Buckingham records that he is faced with silence when he
proclaims God save Richard, England's royal King, the people like dumb
statues or breathing stones / Star'd each on other, and look'd deadly pale,
hardly an auspicious sign for the prospect of the new reign. This fact exposes
the limits of his political skill, showing that he can succeed in outmanoeuvring
corrupt and naive nobles but cannot deceive the people. Furthermore, it
indicates that without a wider basis of support he will not be able to rule for
any length of time, as the play subsequently demonstrates. If Richard cannot
be made king by popular acclaim, he must be presented in a different light
the devout man reluctant to accept the proffered throne .
Richard is a scoundrel; such man is not fit to control the reins of state. Shakespeare's
condemnation of Richard indicates a definite political view. Power based on villainy,
violence and usurpation undermines its own roots. The violation of the tradition of
succession to the throne, so dear to the heart of Hastings, is of no importance; in Shak's
days, change sin the law of succession were constantly being formulated and accepted.
Shakespeare was not opposed to such changes. Bolingbroke had at least maintained his
usurpation through the support of the masses, whose hearts he succeeded in winning, but
Richard was forced to rely on his mercenaries and on those lords who were attached to him
for reasons of their own. Immediately after his seizure of the throne, Richard's allies
demand an accounting. New revolts, new wars are imminent. None of Richard's actions
had been dictated by concern for the welfare of the nation, but were all products of his
boundless ambition and egoism. That such man could have ever ruled the English nobility,
or the nation at large, was surely impossible. in Richard III the doctrine of passive
obedience had to be somewhat modified, for the rebellion against Richard had to be
justified. Henry of Richmond was the ancestor of Elizabeth, and his victory had ushered in
the great age which God had granted to England after her atonement for her sins. Tillyard
(p. 212) holds, in explanation, that Richard III, "was so clearly both a usurper and a
murderer that he had qualified as a tyrant; and against an authentic tyrant it was lawful to
rebel."But orthodox Tudor doctrine had never endorsed rebellion against a tyrant.
Although there is no sign of it in Henry VI, in Richard III we have an important
distinction between lawful king and tyrant, and the implicit doctrine that a
tyrant--a usurper who rules for his own aggrandizement rather than the good of
his people and who is destructive of the commonwealth--is not entitled to the
rights and privileges of a lawful king. This doctrine, as we shall see,
Shakespeare was to develop further in Macbeth.
HAMLET (1)
HAMLET (2)
The Danish throne itself was not subject to the same rules of
kingship as the English throne. In an elective monarchy, court
officials selected the new king by vote. Although the son of a king
was the prime candidate for the throne, the voting nobles had
the right to choose another candidate if they considered him a
better choice. And that was what precisely happened in Elsinore.
The nobles approved the king's brother, Claudius. The reason
why these lords preferred Claudius over Hamlet might be the
comparative youth of Hamlet and his mental state, and the fact
that the kingdom was at that time threatened by an invasion of
the Norwegians under young Fortinbras. The royal councillors
believed that Claudius was better able to cope with the affairs of
the state. Under King Hamlet the kingdom of Denmark had been
respected abroad. It is evident from the speech of Hamlets
school-fellow Horatio that Hamlets father was a valiant king, For
so this side of our known world esteemd him (1.1.85). When
Fortinbras of Norway challenged him to war, he took up the
challenge, and very speedily overcame and slew him. By this
victory the lands that were in dispute fell to Denmark, and so
long as King Hamlet lived they remained his without question.
However, young Fortinbras, desiring to avenge his fathers death
and regain the lost properties, has scraped together an army of
desperadoes with which to attack Denmark.
HAMLET(3)
Young Fortinbras was not, at any rate, old enough to ascend the
throne at the time of King Fortinbras' death; thus the brother of
King Fortinbras, uncle to the delicate and tender prince, had gained
the crown. In both Norway and Denmark there is an uncle on the
throne to thwart the impulses of a headstrong nephew who is the
royal heir in direct line. On the confession of Claudius himself, it
appears that young Fortinbras thinks the weakness of Denmark
affords him a good opportunity to make war on it, and a fitting time
to seize lands that his father had lost to King Hamlet. Claudius is
clearly a wise politician, great orator, and knows exactly what he
has to do to strengthen his position on the throne. Interestingly,
Hamlet seems unaware of the Norwegian threat. His chief thought,
stressed at the beginning and at the end of his first soliloquy, is the
degradation of the kingdom. It is now enslaved by what he will later
call damned custom (3.4.37). The swift marriage of his mother to
his uncle rounded and perfected his outrage by its complete
disregard of his father's memory, and by the stability it gave to his
uncle's position on the throne. Hamlet's father claims to have been
betrayed by his most seeming-virtuous queen and murdered by
that adulterate beast (1.5.46, 42) his brother Claudius. The
official version of his fathers death was that he was stung by a
serpent while sleeping in the palace gardens.
HAMLET (4)
HAMLET (5)
HAMLET (6)
For the courtiers the Play scene has meant merely a crucial outbreak of
Hamlet's initial unrestrained importunity: his unmastered emotionalism, his
bitter ambition for the throne, his idealistic dislike of the quick wedding, and,
above all, his hatred of the accomplished and charming king. The danger,
formerly alluded to by Claudius in general terms is now very specific: I like
him not, nor stands it safe with us (3.3.1). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
unintentionally increase the King's anguish when they remind him how much
the health of the nation is dependent upon his own state: The cease of
majesty
Dies not alone, but, like a gulf doth draw
What's near it with it; it is a massy wheel,
Fixd on the summit of the highest mount...
Instead of providing comfort, however, such sentiments distress Claudius,
who knows that he has gained the throne through regicide and fratricide. He
is not a Devine Right King, but a usurper and bloody murderer. Hamlet has
done something more than murder Claudius; through the Gonzago play he
has aroused a conscience in him. Claudius, primarily a diplomat, has learned
the fine art of deceit. But the internal pressure caused by his guilt is now
beginning to work on him, O! my offence is rank, it smells to heaven
(3.3.36). He attempts prayer. Repentance means an entire turning away of
his soul from his sin, and therefore involves penance and restitution, a giving
up of the effects for which he did the murder, My crown, mine own
ambition, and my queen (3.3.55). Unable to repent, Claudius commences
plotting against the life of Hamlet.
HAMLET (7)
On his way to the ship in which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are taking
him to England and death, Hamlet meets the Norwegian army which is to
attack some part of Poland, marching unmolested across Denmark as
promised by King Claudius. Fortinbras is the man of action, and this
element is brought into greater prominence by the small value of its
object. The prize is a worthless patch of ground, yet here is a youth who
defies fortune to the utmost for its possession. The contrast strikes
Hamlet in the most forcible manner. He has a father murdered, a mother
stained, a throne despoiled and still he does not act.
The popular discontent is turned not against Hamlet who slew Polonius,
but upon Claudius who was himself nearly the victim. Unlike Hamlet,
Laertes is willing to overthrow the political structure of Denmark in his
pursuit of revenge.
To Hell, allegiance! vows, to the blackest devil!
Conscience ad grace to the profoundest pit!
I dare damnation. (4.5.130-31)
Claudius, like Richard II, takes refuge behind divine right as if he had
forgotten that the same right was of no avail to King Hamlet, the brother
he has killed.
HAMLET (8)
HAMLET (9)
He now can view the death of Claudius not as a sinful act of private
vengeance which must be his own damnation, but as lawful act of
public duty, that of a minister of God and not of a scourge.
Young Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet were all looking to avenge the
deaths of their fathers. They all acted on emotion, and this led to the
downfall of two, and the rise to power of one. Unlike Hamlet, both
Laertes and Fortinbras are men of prompt action. Hamlet was a prince
who, according to Fortinbras, would have become a great king,
martial and commanding, but courteous, wise, and just if only he had
not fallen victim to his uncles scheming. Hamlet endures as the
object of universal identification because his central moral dilemma
transcends the Elizabethan period, making him a man for all ages. In
his difficult struggle to somehow act within a corrupt world and yet
maintain his moral integrity, Hamlet ultimately reflects the fate of all
human beings. The Prince of Denmark has earned his rest. His
countrymen have earned and deserved much less; and monarchical
rule in Denmark, which can only be rescued from itself by the killing
of the man on the throne, has reached an impasse.The play begins
with Fortinbras, and ends with Fortinbras; his activity is the frame in
which the whole movement is set. Thus the poet has portrayed him as
the absolute contrast to Hamlet, and made him triumphant, at the
close, as the man of action.
V. Kiernan, op. cit., p. 87