Kingship As a Means Or An End in Shakespeares King Richard II and King Richard III - Literature Essay Samples

When Edmund challenges himself to conjure the worst prophecy he can think of for the forthcoming eclipse, he not only anticipates the plot of King Lear, but also highlights the fears of Tudor political society asunnaturalness between the child and the parent; death, dearth,dissolutions of ancient amities; divisions in state, menaces and maledictions against king and nobles; needless diffidences, banishment of friends, dissipation of cohorts, nuptial breaches, and I know not what.These fears do not question the valediction of the different state apparatuses, rather more the disruption of order. Menaces and maledictions against a king are immediately an act of malevolence irrespective of their aims purely because they seek to upset the political balance (Edmunds fictive prophesy clearly has a certain perversion in respect of his own intentions). Here, kingship is seen as an end the head of the body politic, Gods representative on earth whose legality is not to be questioned. This ass umption of a particular order inevitably leads to a host of problems; society will need to reconcile the actions of a king, no matter whether they are deemed wrong or right, and judge whether the claims of a potential usurper are valid. For if a credible alternative to the current king is found, then this immediately defines kingship as a means to achieving greater ends rather than simply a position to be held. And if a candidate is deemed more worthy than the current king, it remains to be considered by which criteria they are being judged. In the past century, ideology has provided leaders with legitimacy; the narrower concerns of Shakespearean monarchs would have involved maintaining law, order, religion and defence. The internal aims of a king or aspiring king may not be altruistic; the personal drive for power, with its psychological benefits is always a considerable factor when dealing with networks of human relations. A covert politic manifesto may not be in the service of th e state and would require a great deal of skill in using the mechanisms of politics to employ it from the position of the king.Nowhere are these issues addressed more cogently than in King Richard II and King Richard III, where five contrasting kings feature in power struggles which were still relevant in Shakespeares world and brought together ideas of divinity, the state, ambition and the self.An obvious and crucial difference between the two plays is that one of the titular characters is king, and the other wishes to be king. Richard IIs position of power provides him with the strength of power, but the problem of being judged by the results of his policies, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, on the other hand can afford to make idle promises about what he intends to do. Evidence of Richard IIs political outlook is unlikely to be stated at length, as this would not really serve Shakespeares intentions as a professional dramatist, yet there is evidence of his pursuit of particular polic ies. Although Shakespeare only uses the war in Ireland as a function of the narrative, he frames its inclusion in terms that show Richard as a monarch who is defending his realm, as a part of his responsibilities as king; We must supplant those rough rug-headed kern, / Which live like venom . Green describes them as rebels , and were Richard to tolerate them, he would be jeopardising the security of the state. The moral validity of the war is of no concern to a king, whose responsibility is to the exclusive ruling order, however, whilst the suppression of the rebellion is prudent, the means by which he finances the war is contrary to the system he is preserving, and the crucial error which leads to his downfall. Although the audience never learns of what Northumberland calls These accusation and these grievous crimes / Committed by your person and your followers / Against the state and profit of this land which Richard is asked to read out, many of his follies are evident from the d iscussion between the rebel nobles.Ross The commons hath he pilled with grievous taxesAnd quite lost their hearts. The nobles hath he finedFor ancient quarrels and quite lost their hearts.()NorthumberlandWars hath not wasted it, for warred he hath not,()RossHe hath not money for these Irish wars,His burthenous taxations notwithstandingBut by the robbing of the banished duke.This financial impropriety not only displays a lack of political skill, but is indicative of a king who regards his power as absolute and indisputable. The rebellion of the nobles therefore shows they regard kingship not as an incontrovertible end, but a means to justice, lawful succession and financial prudence. The treatment of Bullingbrook would be of particular concern to the nobles as the injustice of his banishment, the opposition to his marriage and the loss of his inheritance in an attack on the society on which their position is based. Richards position as absolute ruler is compromised from the outset wi th his involvement in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. A fratricide cannot surely claim authority from God, and thus renders his position as lawmaker flawed. He compounds this initial injustice with the banishment of Bullingbrook and the subsequent theft of Bullingbrooks inheritance from John of Gaunt. Such a disturbance of the patrimonial line of succession is a serious breach of his responsibilities, as even the conservative Duke of York warns Richard; how art thou a king / But by fair sequence and succession?.Words involving just appear in the play a total of nine times, and their use highlights the uncertainty of the rights of kings, as different character use the word in different senses. When Bullingbrook describes the blood of the Duke of Gloucester crying out to him for justice and rough chastisement he intends it in the most modern sense as correctly convicting Mowbray as the murderer of Gloucester according to moral law. Similarly, Northumberlands reply to the content ion that Bullingbrook is poor in terms of title and money is Richly in both, if justice had her right . Alternatively, Richard uses just as a synonym for loyal: we create, in absence of ourself, / Our uncle York lord governor of England; / For he is just and always loved us well, or in relation to his personal application of law, as he responds to Gaunt: Why at our justice seemst thou then to lour? (emphasis added). The other usage is that in reference to a divine or natural justice, to which Richards publicly appeals for to decide the contest between Bullingbrook and Mowbray Since we can not atone you, we shall see / Justice design the victors chivalry , Richard then overrules this justice by deciding the contest himself. After being captured by Bullingbrook on the basis of having corrupted the king, Green consoles himself by declaring that My comfort is that heaven will take our souls / And plague injustice with the pains of hell . Green knows he is not being executed for corrupti ng the king, but for supporting Richards right to the throne, his appeal to heaven raises the issue of divine right that provides the greatest obstacle to Bullingbrook. The idea of divine appointment is now an utterly flawed concept, but was very much a belief in Shakespeares world. The issue was not to be used as a flexible political tool, but was deemed essential to the structure of power. In Act IV, Carlisle, as a Bishop, puts the case most forcefully that God alone can judge the king and that Bullingbrook, as a subject of the divine king, is automatically a traitor. His defence is lengthy, logical, and eloquent and presents Bullingbrook with a problem. The answer comes abruptly from Northumberland: Well have you argued, sir, and for your pains / Of capital treason we arrest you here , thereby the argument is ended by force and the matter ignored. However, the issue remains and underscores much of the debate in Henry IV Part 1 and 2 and even in Henry V it plays upon Henrys consci ous enough for him to declare Not to-day, O Lord, / O, not to-day, think not upon the fault / My father made in compassing the crown! .Where Richard may have neglected his secular duties as king, there are indications that Bullingbrook will be able to fulfil them. Richard himself notes Bullingbrooks popularity with the common man: How he did seem to dive into their hearts / With humble and familier courtesy, / What reverence he did throw away on slaves . Richard regards this behaviour as an unnecessary extension of the role of a nobleman, which debases his rank and is dubious in its intention. However, it demonstrates a political ability that Richard lacks, and displays Bullingbrooks comprehension of what power is built on. It can be argued that Bullingbrook regards power as built from below, whereas Richards sees it simply descending from above in the tradition, irrefutable chain. Whether Bullingbrook is ingenuous or not does not diminish the fact that popular support prevents susp icion and the sort of unjust measures Richard has to resort to. This political attitude is extended when Bullingbrook declares he is prepared to pardon Mowbray and welcome him back to England. Norfolk be repealed. Repealed he shall be / And, though mine enemy, restored again / To all his lands and signories . This respect for Norfolks hereditary rights transcends their personal differences and restores the order of the state. By maintaining the established order, Bullingbrook highlights the concept of the kings two bodies, where the position of king as head of state is confirmed as a structural end of the hierarchy of power, but the man who occupies the role is expected to employ means for this status quo to continue. Bullingbrooks apparent political subversion, is in fact a measure to ensure the system of power remains the same, after all, Shakespeare was writing whilst the succession of the English throne was a matter for concern and less than 60 years after Richard II, England wa s king-less. If Bullingbrooks ascent fits neatly into a Foucauldian power/subversion relationship and the continuation of the political structure was ensured, then the techniques used to gain power are of greater interest, and none of Shakespeares protagonists display a greater mastery of political manoeuvring than Richard III.Richard domination of Richard III is the force that drives the play, demonstrated from the outset by his opening soliloquy, which immediately outlines his intentions and nature. Of course, Richards character predates the action of Richard III, and he features in Henry VI Part 2 and 3, as a loyal Yorkist. This is where the revelation of his self emerges as he declaresAnd yet, between my souls desire and meThe lustful Edwards title buriedIs Clarence, Henry, and his son young Edward,()Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile,() I can add colours to the chameleon,Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,And set the murderous Machiavel to school.richThis cons cious and unashamed understanding of his desire is what Stephen Greenblatt describes as improvisation , the ability to deceive by assimilating the surrounding culture through empathy and using it pragmatically to gain whatever is advantageous to your cause. Richards confident boast that he can outdo the deception of the chameleon, Proteus and Machiavelli is exemplary of Greenblatts idea of ?self-fashioning. Key to this idea is the dichotomy within Renaissance culture of submission to an absolute power or authority and something perceived as alien, strange or hostile , concluding that self-fashioning occurs at the point of encounter between an authority and an alien . In Richards case, the ?alien is authority and the ?authority is himself. This perversion of these two concepts leads Ronald Levao to observe that Richard is just as surely a demonic parody of Renaissance mans most optimistic self-image. He is the paragon of a world where malevolent desire replaces [altruistic love] . Th e prospect of Richard as king supported by this combination of desire and skill is abhorrent to many of the other characters, who make frequent connections between Richard and the underworld, he is variously described as dreadful minister of hell , son of hell , A hell-hound and Foul devil . Richards concept of kingship is the antithesis of the ideal model, where the monarch is naturally virtuous and appointed by God. He desires the kingship for psychological pleasure, the Lancastrian dynasty that he opposed has been replaced with his own family, and so he turns his attentions on them, defining himself by his ability to disturb power. Richards opening soliloquy is often cited as the revealing of his personality, his neuroses and his desire. Richards understanding of his self is in relation to the power he desires; the ambiguity of the famous declaration I am determinà ¨Ã‚ ¤Ã‚  to prove a villain provides the essence of Richards character from both an internal and external perspect ive. There is recognition from Richard of the determination and awareness required for success, and the realisation of his role as destabilising the power structure. Moreover there are overtones of the role of God in shaping Richards destiny and the inevitability of his purpose as a product of a society that is prepared to usurp kings.Richard has a dislike of the niceties of courtly behaviour that his deformity excludes him from. His deformity is of no political significance in itself, but the psychological complex it gives him would form the foundation of any psychoanalytical approach to his character. He does not regard the activities of Edwards court as symptomatic of decadent rule, which might be a valid political objection, but is possessed with an envy which leads to a rebellion against the forces of nature that have deemed him not shaped for sportive tricks / Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass / Cheated of feature by dissembling nature . Richards positioning of himse lf in opposition to nature is echoed by opinion of him within the play: Thou that wast seald in thy nativity / The slave of nature .Richard, Duke of Gloucesters opposition to court practices is shared by the Duke of York in Richard II, but on vastly different terms. York has a genuine political concern that the frivolities of court life contribute towards Richards shortcoming as king: it [Richards ear] is stopped with other flattering sounds, / As praises, of whose taste the wise are fond, / Lascivious metres, to whose venom sound / The open ear of youth doth always listen . York considers the Reports of fashions in proud Italy as an infiltration of alien and corrupting influences. This difference between the elder generation of York and Gaunt as hard-headed men of state and Richard as a leader more inclined to poetry than war demonstrates Richards tendency to self-centricity rather than use kingship as a means to further the prosperity of the England. Christopher Pye notes this in dulgence when he comments that Richard often seems drawn to the pathos of his fall than to any affirmation of his glory . Indeed, Richards eloquence during his descent from the throne contrasts with Bullingbrooks increasing taciturnity as he develops into a statesman.Just as Bullingbrooks rise relies on increasing support through political legitimacy, Richard, Duke of Gloucester relies on his employment of political techniques. Levao accurately judges that he outplays the others through his extraordinary agility, his ability to create a contrivance for every situation. At one moment he is a Petrarchan lover; at another a wise old uncle . The Lord Mayor would also regard Richard as a man of the people; Do, good my lord, your citizens entreat you and religious adherent; See where his grace stands, ?tween two clergymen . Through illusion, Richard gathers support from powerful men like the Mayor and the Bishops ([To the Bishops] Come, let us to our holy work again ) and uses promises of promotion to ambitious men like Catesby and Buckingham to gain trusted lieutenants. Where bribery or deception does not work, he turns to violence to eliminate opposition. The execution of men that have greater legitimacy to the throne which originates in Henry VI Part 3 with the killing of Henry and Edward, Prince of Wales and continues with his brother Clarence and the key nobles Rivers, Grey and Vaughan are productive political acts, regardless of their moral justification. This process of elimination presents Richard with the throne, and a problem which Richard has overlooked ? that of what to do with the kingship. His abuse of the political structure and the position of king may have satisfied his desires, but without a broader political outlook he has undermined the system of which he is part. Richards answer is to continue his brutality, by executing Buckingham for counselling caution in murdering the two boy princes. The murder of the princes and Lady Anne (who stands in his way of a more advantageous marriage with Edwards daughter, Elizabeth) is politically unnecessary and murder of women and children morally reprehensible. Because Richard regards being king as an end, not one justified by God, but by himself, his fall from power becomes inevitable in the light of what Levao sees as degeneration from a creature of infinite variety into a creature of indeterminacy, his limitless power descending into formless desire . The system that Richard was trying to defeat ultimately defeats him; the ghosts of the people he has murdered come back to haunt him, literally and metaphorically.Some critics have noted the resolution of the play, with the success of Richmond, as a deflationary note on which to finish ? the victorious Richmond is dreary and wooden compared even to a defeated Richard crying for a horse . Yet, Richmond promises a more stable and just government from the Tudor dynasty, which was, of course, still in power when Richard III was written. Th e desire for a more charismatic figure to conclude the play emphasises the conflict between expecting drama from the narrative and the restrictions of depicting (relatively contemporaneous) historical figures. All debate concerning the characters of men and the structure of narratives in these history plays must be done with the cautious reflection that they are not of Shakespeares invention. He did not decide that the death of Edward IV would provide Richard with an opportunity to become king or invent the murder of Thomas of Woodstock to start the narrative of Richard II. Neither was he writing in a political vacuum ? the Tudors sought to demonise Richard III as his lack of legitimacy for the crown helps reinforce their dynastic origins, and Elizabeth drew parallels between herself and Richard II as heirless monarchs whose crown was about to move diagonally down the hierarchy. Martin Dzelzainis attempts to reconcile the lack of overt political thinking from Shakespeare by placing him within some kind of zeitgeist of the agenda of the new humanism in the 1590s . Dzelzainis deems it necessary to defend Shakespeare from the accusation that he has nothing new to offer in terms of political thought, but is content merely to rehearse a familiar repertoire of doctrines and figures (the Tudor myth, the great chain of being, degree, obedience, the many-headed multitude, the Machiavel, the kings two bodies . All these ideas may seem familiar and basic after over four centuries of development in political theory and action, but were undoubtedly of great relevance to Shakespeares world. Bullingbrook and Richard, Duke of Gloucester may have performed similar functions in purely political terms, but the dramatic treatment that Shakespeare affords their characters expands and explores the central issue of the relationship between the individual and power. Shakespeares views on the kingship are not radical, nor are they explicitly stated. His traditionalist view is one that is suitable to the lessons of history that teaches that man must work with the system, or prepare to be consumed by it, kingship could never be an end so long as certain functions are expected from it.BibliographyCraig, W.J., ed. Shakespeare Complete Works. London: Oxford University Press, 1905.Dzelzainis, Martin, ?Shakespeare and Political Thought. A companion to Shakespeare. Ed. David Scott Kasten. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1984.Harris Sacks, David, ?Political Culture. A companion to Shakespeare. Ed. David Scott Kasten. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.Levao, Ronald. Renaissance Minds and Their Fictions: Cusanus, Sidney, Shakespeare. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.Pye, Christopher. The Regal Phantasm: Shakespeare and the politics of spectacle. London: Routledge, 1990Shakespeare, William. King Richard II, ed. Andrew Gurr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Shakespeare, William. King Richard III, ed. Janis Lull. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.