Shakespeare and kingship

The Politics of Shakespeare's Genres, Methuen,pp. New Essays in Cultural Materialism, Tennenhouse discusses Shakespeare's creation of the Elizabethan chronicle history plays and the drama Hamlet as a political activity in he which sought to find a legitimate, ideal ruling authority. My objective in this is to determine what figures allow the materials of chronicle history to authorize the state in characteristically Elizabethan ways. But this in turn requires me to make another kind of comparison, one that understands aesthetic strategies as political strategies.

Representations of Kingship and Power in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy Amanda Mabillard Since it is impossible to know Shakespeare's attitudes, beliefs, and play writing methodology, we can only present hypotheses, based upon textual evidence, regarding his authorial intention and the underlying didactic message found in the second tetralogy of history plays.

In constructing his history plays, Shakespeare most likely relied upon the Chronicles of Froissart, and, primarily, Holinshed, but he altered and embellished the material found in these sources.

Through an examination of both the plays and Shakespeare's sources, we see that Shakespeare and kingship of the changes are implemented to promote a deliberate political philosophy.

The plays make the statement that the best possible ruler must be both anointed and politically shrewd. A monarch's license to rule is not based simply on his or her divine right of succession, but also on his or her ability to shoulder the responsibility that comes with being divinely appointed — to lead the people wisely, placing the welfare of the nation above personal desire.

Introduction

This philosophy seems to be a combination of Tudor and Machiavellian theories on the nature of kingship and power. Moreover, it is possible that this didactic message linking all four history plays in the second tetralogy was constructed as a reaction to the succession problem and the potentiality that Elizabeth and her council might choose an heir lacking in one or both of these areas.

Thus, the plays, to a large extent, can be read as a collective guide to help Elizabeth select the next ruler of England.

In order to assess the credibility of the argument that the plays contain the didactic message that a ruler needs the combination of divine right and leadership qualities, we must examine the three main characters, Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V, as found in the chronicles and in the plays.

The historical events of Richard's reign are kept in sequence and no significant changes are made to his character. However, it is the small and subtle changes to the chronicles that so effectively reshape the focus of the play from a simple report on history, to a dramatic lesson on the responsibilities of monarchs.

Many of the embellishments Shakespeare makes to the information he found in Holinshed's Chronicles are directed towards stressing and reaffirming Richard's status as a divinely sanctioned king. The first and most striking example is the way the character of Gaunt changes.

Shakespeare's portrayal of Gaunt is one of the few instances where he dramatically alters the source material of Holinshed1.

Kingship and Power in Shakespeare's Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V

In the Chronicles, Gaunt is a disorderly and rapacious magnate. However, in Richard II, Gaunt is the voice of reason, wisdom, and, above all, patriotism. It is likely that Shakespeare relied on the Chronicle of Froissart for his characterization of Gaunt.

The following passage from Froissart's Chronicle shows the similarities: The duke of Lancastre was sore dyspleased in his mind to se the kynge his nephewe mysse use himselfe in dyvers thynges as he dyd.

He consydred the tyme to come lyke a sage prince, and somtyme sayd to suche as he trusted best: Our nephue the kynge of Englande wyll shame all or he cease: The Frenchman are right subtyle; for one myschiefe that falleth amonge us, they wolde it were ten, for otherwise they canne nat recover their dommages, nor come to their ententes, but by our owne means and dyscorde betwene ourselfe.

And we se dayly that all realmes devyded are destroyed.

Navigate Guide

John Froissart, Chronicles [London: In these passages from Froissart is a Gaunt who greatly resembles Shakespeare's character, but Shakespeare further enhances Gaunt's patriotism and loyalty to the king in order to place the emphasis on Richard's divine right to rule.

In many of his speeches in the play, Gaunt emphatically expounds the importance of the Divine Right of Kings.In writing his history plays, Shakespeare was actually commenting on what he thought about the notion of kingship. Through his plays, he questions the divine right of kings, which the kings and the aristocracy used heavily in their favour to win the people's love.

Representations of Kingship and Power in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy Amanda Mabillard Since it is impossible to know Shakespeare's attitudes, beliefs, and play writing methodology, we can only present hypotheses, based upon textual evidence, regarding his authorial intention and the underlying didactic message found in the second tetralogy of history plays.

In his first appearance, King Duncan performs two of the basic duties of a king: punishing the bad and rewarding the good.

Upon learning of the treachery of Cawdor and the heroism of Macbeth, he says, "No more that thane of Cawdor shall deceive / Our bosom interest: go pronounce his present [immediate] death, / And with his former title greet Macbeth" ().

Representations of Kingship and Power in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy Amanda Mabillard Since it is impossible to know Shakespeare's attitudes, beliefs, and play writing methodology, we can only present hypotheses, based upon textual evidence, regarding his authorial intention and the underlying didactic message found in the second .

Kingship in Shakesperean Plays Due to the powerful influence of the monarchy, the nature, duties and responsibilities of kingship were of particular interest to Shakespeare.

The mark of a bad king was the decline of the political, social and economic climates, while the mark of a good king was the blossoming of such worlds.

Kingship The struggle to become king and the issue of a ruler's proper qualities lie at the center of Shakespeare's chronicle history plays.