Shakespeares Sources and Context - Essay Example

SHAKESPEARE ...''I am coming on To venge me as I may and to put forth My rightful hand in a well-hallowed cause"... "Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on To venge me as I may and to put forth My rightful hand in the well-hallowed cause" (I.ii.291-293) This is the response King Henry V gives to Dauphin's messenger who delivers a crate of tennis balls sent by Dauphin as a mocking reminder of Henry's irresponsible and wayward youth. With a menacing and icy wrath, Henry turns the Dauphin's jest on its head, threatening the messenger with a promise to treat the field of France as a tennis court and play a game for Dauphin's father's crown. This quote from the play Henry V, is the last of the four pieces in Shakespeare's second tetralogy, which treats major events of English history in the 14th and early 15th centuries. The plays Richard II, Henry IV, Part I and II and Henry V are based on historical facts taken primarily from Holinshed's Chronicles that tell of a kingdom plagued with rebellion, treachery and shifting alliances. Shakespeare wrote the second series of history plays at the peak of his career, roughly around 1595-1599, covering the history from around 1398-1420. Although the events he writes about occurred around two centuries before his time, but Shakespeare expected his audience to be familiar with the characters and events he was describing. The rise and fall of kings and the battles between the houses were woven into the cultural fabric of England and formed and integral part of country's patriotic legends and national mythology. The specific details of important historical events have obscured with the passage of time and thus, the heroes and battles of an event are to a degree, cloaked in myth. The plays innovatively mix history and comedy, moving from lofty scenes of kings and battles to base scenes showing ruffians engaging in robberies and drinking. The strength of the plays is its remarkable richness, a variety of textures and a fascinatingly ambiguous take on history as well as on political motivation. Shakespeare's Sources and Context Shakespeare drew on a number of sources for writing his history plays as he did in almost all of his work Since it is not possible to know Shakespeare's beliefs, attitude and the methodology he used in writing his plays, we can only hypothesize on the basis of his textual evidence regarding his authorial intentions and the underlying didactic message found in the second tetralogy of history plays. However, it is generally agreed that the primary source for historical material was the second addition of Raphael Holinshed's massive work, The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, published in 1587. Holinshed's work, only one of an entire genre of historical events popular at that time, provides the fundamental chronology of events Shakespeare followed, altered to his convenience or ignored to suit his dramatic purposes. He may well have used other sources too, as suggested by scholars that he used at least seven possible primary sources for Richard II. Through the examination of the plays and the sources used by Shakespeare, we analyze that many of the changes are implemented to promote a deliberate political philosophy. The plays clearly make a statement that the best possible ruler must be both politically shrewd and anointed. A monarch's license to rule is not only based upon his divine right of succession but also his ability to shoulder the responsibility that comes with being divinely appointed. This means that the monarch should lead his people wisely and placing the welfare of the nation above personal desires. This philosophy seems to be a combination of Machiavellian and Tudor theories, based on the nature of power and kingship. It is also possible that the didactic message that links all the 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, to a large extent the plays can be read as a collective guide to help Elizabeth select England's next ruler. The history plays and the characters within them, are also preoccupied by the important question whether the King of England is divinely appointed, meaning thereby, whether he is God's deputy, as John Gaunt says in Richard II "His deputy anointed in His sight," (I. ii.38). If the case is such then, disposition, overthrow and worst of all, the murder of a king is akin to blasphemy. Just as in the classical Greek tragedies, in Shakespeare's work too, such an act may cast a long shadow over the reign of the king and his descendants, who murders or disposes his predecessor. This shadow that manifests itself in the form of literal ghosts in plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Richard III, also looms over Richard II and its sequels. Richard II is haunted by the politically motivated murder, not of a king but of his Uncle, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. After the overthrow of Richard II, the new King Henry IV is in turn haunted by Richard's overthrow and eventual murder. This shadow hangs over both the plays Henry IV, Part I and II. Only after the death of Henry IV, his son Henry V, symbolically proves himself to wear the crown and rule as King of England. Historical Context The play was published and performed late in the reign of Elizabeth I of England, who was childless and at a time when the queen's age made the succession an important political concern. The succession of Richard II may have been intended as a political comment on the contemporary situation with the weak Richard II analogous to Queen Elizabeth and an implicit argument in favor of her replacement by a monarch who would be capable of creating a stable dynasty. The period following the deposition of Richard II was the time when the kingdom was plagued with, treachery, rebellion and shifting alliances. The two parts of Henry IV especially focus on the development of Prince Hal (later Henry V) from wastrel to ruler. In the first part, King Henry IV is wearied of the strife that has accompanied his succession to the throne. He learns that the Welsh chieftain, Owen Glendower has captured Edmund Mortimer, the earl of March and that Henry Percy, also know as Hotspur, the son of the earl of Northumberland, has refused to release his Scottish prisoners, until the King pays ransom for Mortimer. As the war escalates, Mortimer, (now married to Glendower's daughter) Hotspur (now allied with the Welsh) and Glendower, conspire to divide Henry's kingdom into three equal parts. Shakespeare's plays represent history and although the play is not real, but for most parts the historical events and persons it purports at one time were. In defense of the 1592 theatre, Thomas Nashe greatly favoured the popular genre of English history plays, arguing that history is better off embodied on stage than interred in the chronicle books. He also believes that the theatre does right by figuratively taking them out of their graves, speaking in their stead and bodying them forth to tell their stories. But Richard II found in Shakespeare's plays overall differs a little from the chronicles with small and subtle changes reshaping the play's focus on the responsibilities of a monarch and at the same time stressing and reaffirming Richard's status as a divinely sanctioned King. In portraying Gaunt, who is rapacious and a disorderly magnate, Shakespeare dramatically alters him into a wise and loyal patriot in Richard II. Gaunt's loyalty stresses upon the importance of the Divine Rights of Kings and although he knows that Richard is responsible for his brother's murder (Duke of Gloucester) he refuses to support any action to put Richard's crown at risk." God's is the quarrel; for God's substitute,/ His deputy anointed in His sight,/Hath caused his death; the which is wrongfully,/ Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift /An angry arm against His minister." (I, ii, 37-41) Gaunt believed that under any circumstance, resistance to a King is a sin and ensures damnation and even though Richard is a divinely ordained King, he is grossly incompetent at managing the affairs of the realm. He is legitimate and therefore, has one of the qualifications that make a successful ruler. But many additions Shakespeare makes to Richard II, are designed to emphasize his divine right, while many passages are added to light many flaws in his governance. These additions subsequently illustrate that Richard is not the best possible ruler as he does not have the combination of legitimacy and political savvy. A proof of Richard's inability to make shrewd political judgment is his decision in a dispute between Henry Bolingbroke, Richard's cousin, and Thomas Mowbray, when he expels Bolingbroke from the country only for six years and Mowbray for life. This is seen as a big mistake Richard makes and while he is away to administer a war in Ireland, Bolingbroke invades the north coast of England, usurps the throne and crowns himself king. Richard is imprisoned and later killed by a nobleman, while King Henry hypocritically repudiates the murderer and vows to journey to Jerusalem to cleanse himself of his part in Richard's death. Henry IV, part I, tells about the England's costly losses in France and the civil war at home and the death of the English hero Talbot on the battlefield. Lord Talbot may be a terror to his French foes on the battlefield, but to the competing factions of his English friends he is a commodity among others, a useful but an expendable article of exchange, in the larger process of advantage and power pursuit at home. The brave and noble Lord Talbot ultimately becomes the "Bought and sold Lord Talbot." (4.iv.13). He became one of the many who "Sold their bodies for their country's benefit." (5.vi.106). The history presented by Shakespeare in the heroic death of Talbot speaks not of the triumph but of the terrible reality and costs of war, where the body is expended and wasted as a commodity. Talbot's triumph is not in France but on "on the Stage" where spectators may perceive him "fresh bleeding" as he is sold to his death. In Shakespeare's history plays, the humans are often used by the powerful that make history, and the bodies of others are used by them in their wars, in their political marriages, their political manipulation. If we look at the battles, both on the field where force is the argument and in equally dangerous interims, where linage and succession is the argument, in both cases the battle for advantage is waged by buying and selling the bodies of others. In Henry IV, Part II, Sir John Falstaff engages most explicitly in the buying and selling of humans through the Gloucestershire countryside for "sufficient men" (3.ii.92) for advantage. Acting on behalf of the King, accumulating men to stand against rebels, Falstaff shows indifference to the ones lined up before him as he fills his quota. "You shall go" he tells one of them "it is time you were spent."(1.i.5-6), it is time to be consumed by the King. King Henry IV is politically shrewd and is the antithesis of Richard II. But unfortunately, Henry IV comes to the throne as an illegitimate monarch. He does not have the Divine Right of Kings and is responsible for the God's anointed Richard. Due to these reasons, Henry's ability to rule is diminished, and instability is the order of the day. But to govern successfully, Henry will assume any persona and perform any action. The contrast between the characteristics of a good versus a bad ruler can directly apply to Richard II and Henry IV as presented in the tetralogy. One is considered weak, the other indomitable and spirited, one affable the other haughty, one lascivious the other moderate, one serious and the other frivolous. The second tetralogy by Shakespeare presents a period when England moved from civil unrest to internal unity and international victory. As Henry V was the one who brought about this unity, Shakespeare's plays contains a study of this legendary King's effectiveness as a ruler. Some critics consider Hal's association with tavern friends as unethical and a dishonourable act. His befriending Falstaff only for political reasons and improving his public image, and disowning him after wearing the crown, would be a cruel and manipulative action and a means to a selfish end. When Hal (newly crowned as Henry V) is paraded through the streets, Falstaff rushes to the procession and calls: "my royal Hal.my sweet boy..My king! My Jove! I speak to thee my heart!" (Henry IV, Part II, 5.v.41-46). Falstaff calls out to Hal with all his love and pride of a friend, brother and father and in response Henry V callously replies, "I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers./How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!" (Henry IV, Part II, 5.v.47-48). Hal does not simply break his association with Falstaff but he breaks Falstaff's spirit. In Henry V we are given the news that Falstaff falls ill and dies because, "the King has killed his heart" (2.i.88). On deeper analysis Hal can be defended for his tavern life not merely for political gains but as self-seeking because he shows real concern for the commoners and he asks for them to be educated. Hal's later success in his political life comes from the time he spent in the tavern learning from and appreciating people. By the end of Henry V, Hal has effectively led-and in many cases befriended- people from four different social groups: the English court of royals and nobles, the English commoners, England as a whole (including Wales, Scotland and Ireland), and foreign nations. In keeping with his father's advice (Henry IV, II) to seek foreign quarrels, Henry V, resolves to subjugate France and retake the lands, formerly held by England. He was convinced by his political and military advisors of his rightful claim to the crown of France. Henry has made up his mind and he claims to come to France in the name of God, ....... "I am coming on To venge me as I may and to put forth My rightful hand in a well-hallowed cause".... (I.ii.291-293), saying that Dauphin himself will be responsible for the consequences. Henry may seem arrogant but he makes himself appear humble by appealing to God rather than to his own power. He claims that the wickedness of his enemy is to blame for the violence and depicts himself as an instrument of furthering God's will. The action in the play culminates in Henry's campaign in France with a ragtag army. But throughout, it is Henry who dominates the play, from his nervous watch in disguise before the battle of Agincourt, praying for victory to the courtship of Princess Katherine which is romantic and tender. Conclusion If the plays work towards the teaching of what attributes the right ruler for England must have, the lesson is best learned by watching Henry's son Hal. His association with Falstaff and the others gives him relationship with the common people and that will be vital to his reign as Henry V. When he does wear the crown, he maintains the wonderful image he had modeled for himself in Henry IV, Part I and he proves to be a good military strategist and a shrewd decision maker. Henry V, with a clear conscience and the Lord on his side has the Divine Right of Kings; therefore, he has God's permission to rule England. Although Henry has this divine right and is accountable only to God, he believes that his status as anointed king is equally based on his ability to shoulder the responsibility that comes with the appointment which are leading the people justly and making calculated and shrewd decisions. Thus when Henry V ascends the throne with the unification of Richard's divine authority and his father's political sophistication, we see the perfect monarch ruling over England and an amalgamation of two divergent political philosophies. This fusion of two opposing political philosophies and the subtle manner, in which the plays promote this theory, undoubtedly makes the tetralogy a work of genius. ___________________________________________ Bibliography Allen, J. W. A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. London: Methuen, 1928. Blakemore, E. Evans. The Tragedy of King Ricahrd the Second.The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1974. 847-883. Bruster, Douglas. Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare. Cambrideg: Cambrideg University Press, 1992. Bullough, Geoffery. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Campbell, Lily B. Shakespeare's Histories. London: Methuen, 1980. Cox, John D. 1945. Shakespeare and Political Philosophy. Philosophy and Literature The John Hopkins University Press. Vol. 26. No.1, April 2002, pp.107-124. Dollimore, Jonathan and Alan Sinfield. Political Shakespeare. Manchester: University Press, 1985. Figgis, John Neville. The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge: University Press, 1914. Froissart, John. Chronicles. New York: Macmillan & Co., 1899. Holinshed, Raphael. Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. 6 vols. New York: AMS Press Inc., 1965. Vol. 5. Joseph, B. L. Shakespeare's Eden. London, Blandford Press, 1971. Ribner, Irving. The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1965. Nashe,Thomas. Peirce Penilesse his Supplication to the Divell. 1592. The Works of Thomas Nashe, Vol.1. R.B. McKerrow, Ed. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1910. Rackin, Phyllis. Stages of History. London: Routeledge, 1990. Shakespeare, William. Complete Works. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, Gen. Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.. Shakespeare, William. King Richard II. Peter Ure, Ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1946. Shakespeare, William. Henry IV, Part I. London: Oxford University Press, 1917. Shakespeare, William. Henry IV, Part II. London: Oxford University Press, 1921. Shakespeare, William. Henry V. London: Oxford University Press, 1918. Tillyard, E.M.W. Shakespeare's History Plays. Middlesex: Penguin, 1969. Traversi, Derek. Shakespeare: From Richard II to Henry V. Stanford: University Press, 1957. Wells, Robin Headlam. Shakespeare, Politics, and the State. London: Macmillan, 1986. _____________________________________ . Read More