Shakespeare's Use Of History

Shakespeare’s Use of History The aim of this paper is to discuss Shakespeare’s use of history in his plays. It is not our intention to extend our exposition to all of his work. We will concentrate mainly in that intermediate genre between the classically acknowledged forms of tragedy and comedy known as History Plays, with a main focus on the Second Tetralogy, i.e. Richard II, 1 & 2 Henry IV, and Henry V. The term first appears in the 1623 Folio, whose editors boldly divided into “Master William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories and Tragedies.” However, since it is not selfdefining or self-explanatory, a brief note on its origin is worth mentioning. To begin with, the History Play came into existence in the earlier sixteenth century from the morality form, and depended upon the replacement of Everyman –that is to say human beings in general- by the Nation as the figure at the centre of the moral struggle. The history plays and their immediate sources are rooted, at a deeper level, in the Tudor Englishman's persistent interest in matters historical. The Tudors encouraged their people to look on the events that led to their accession in a special way, giving life to the Tudor Myth, which was based on two historical notions. One of them is crucial to the understanding of Shakespeare’s History Plays: the union of the houses of York and Lancaster through Henry VII’s marriage with the York heiress, which was the providential and happy ending of an organic piece of history. The other is Henry VII’s claim to the British throne, unconnected either with his Lancastrian descent or his Yorkist marriage, but through his Welsh ancestry. He promoted the old Welsh superstition that King Arthur was not dead but would return again suggesting that he and his heirs were Arthur incarnate. According to Spencer’s Faerie Queene, the golden age of Elizabeth is the fortunate consummation of a vast process. In order to discuss Shakespeare’s use of English, a first question arises: Why is it that History Plays where so important during Elizabethan times? There are well-worn arguments in favour of history being used to defend the theatre, a situation which must have seemed immensely reassuring to a profession by no means free from attack at the beginning of the 1590s. There were other pressures, however, inducing dramatists to interest themselves in history as the last decade of the century was beginning, and one of them was certainly commercial. The huge increase in theatrical activity in those years, discernible especially in the establishment of more permanent playing places in London, created a need for plays in numbers hitherto undreamt of. The rapidity with which plays were written, staged, and exhausted emerges clearly from the theatrical account-book of Philip Henslowe. Henslowe's records also make clear the alacrity with which dramatists turned to English history as a ready source of plots, so that, by the end of the century, there was scarcely a reign, from the Conquest to the coming of the Tudors that had not been dramatized. As throughout Elizabeth’s reign history books poured from the presses, the inescapable educative potential of history cannot be overlooked. So much so, that it may be considered one of the most important reasons for the audience’s rising appeal for history plays. Therefore, history was valuable both because it was a great accumulation of facts and because it had certain immediate practical uses. Within those practical uses we can mention: first, the fact that history repeats itself. It follows that we have it in our power to foresee the future and therefore in some way to provide for it. Second, that it preserves worthy deeds from oblivion. And last but not

least, a huge desire for glory that incited men to great deeds so as to be remembered via historical writing. By example of old history the reader (or spectator) is shown what he should aspire to and pursue and contrariwise, what he should shun. History also knits together people separated by time and space. By reading history young men acquire the wisdom of age and are motivated to virtuous emulation. Furthermore, it is of special worth to the Prince, although it is not only the Prince who can benefit by the example of history, but it applies to all kinds of men. Every single sentiment on the subject that has been displayed is pure Tudor commonplace and whether Shakespeare liked it or not, he could not escape it. Another reason worth mentioning for the increasing interest in history plays is the great upsurge in national self-awareness in the last years of the sixteenth century, which had its inevitable effect on the eagerness of audiences to be informed of their nation's past, and on the willingness of dramatists to provide the information. Nevertheless, to suppose that the passion for history plays stemmed exclusively from national euphoria following defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 would be absurd, for the emergence of the genre clearly precedes that date; but to assume that it was unaffected by it, and by the intense anxiety concerning national security before and after it, would be equally unwise. So as to continue with our discussion, another unavoidable question that emerges is: Why did Shakespeare use history at all? A big power of fiction in Elizabethan times led to a great interaction between the theatre and the political reality. Unfortunately, as time has passed, scholars have become estranged from the world of Elizabeth and Shakespeare and the interpretation of the history plays has gravitated around two well-defined poles: one that sees the Second Tetralogy as a morality play and one that sees no morality in it, just politics. This polarisation causes us to venture a deepest analysis of Shakespeare’s purpose of using history: was he trying to help maintain the status quo of the era? Or, quite radically against that view: was he subtly showing his audience any potentially subversive idea? Following the traditional principle that great art is a work that shows the essence of the age, we will attempt to expand this dichotomy via a brief discussion of the medieval belief in a harmonious order, in the form of chivalry; the doctrine of Machiavelli, which essentially proposes that disorder is the natural state of man and that civilisation is a matter of expediency; and the presence of these ideologies in Shakespeare’s Second Tetralogy (or the lack thereof). As a man of his age, Shakespeare could not avoid –in Tillyard’s words- the “Elizabethan World Picture,” namely, the way Elizabethans saw the world; nor representing this common vision of reality in his history plays. As mentioned above, this picture included a medieval conception of the order of the world: the universe as the perfect creation of God. A unity in which everything had its place, and which was often found characterized by images of a chain, a series of corresponding planes, or a dance to music. In other words, a different conception of the world was inconceivable for Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and even if it had been plausible, to include such a perspective in his plays would have made them incomprehensible for his audience. Following the medieval conception of an orderly world, it becomes evident that Shakespeare’s history plays, in particular the Second Tetralogy, which seemed to be ruled by disorder, are really an illustration of the movement towards natural order. Hence, the cycles of history follow a moral pattern beginning with prosperity and ending with a renewal of prosperity and the disorder that is found in between is the result of human actions. If it is considered that the Elizabethans were essentially living in a medieval society, the interpretation of Shakespeare’s plays should also take into account the presence of doctrines of divine intervention:

While there was, of course, talk of Fortune’s wheel in this connection, even Fortune was considered subject to divine law and bound to turn her wheel in accordance with the demands of divine justice. The cycles of history were, therefore, mapped out by the Elizabethans in moral terms as recurring patterns of sin and punishment. (Campbell, 121)

From a specific political point of view, we cannot forget that at the time when Shakespeare lived and these plays where staged, the security of Elizabeth’s position as a monarch seemed to be under siege from all sides and it would be understandably difficult for her subjects to discern whom they should follow. For them, the success of the first Lancastrian kings (Bullingbrook/Henry IV and Hal/Henry V) answered such a relevant question. In the diverse roles they take on during the plays: courtier, prince, heir apparent, or monarch they project themselves as the epitome of chivalry, which was the defining characteristic of the medieval ideology. Thanks to the production of socio-political treatises like The Book of the Order of Chivalry and Knighthood and The Book of the Courtier, which provided a prescription of the values and practices of the ideal subject, Shakespeare’s audience would have been able to recognise the role that chivalry played in the story of each of these characters. We must acknowledge that each play, when read individually, is concerned principally with one of the key values of chivalry: Richard II with the value of Faith; I Henry IV with Strength, military prowess; II Henry IV with Prudence, and Henry V with Justice. Although all the values of chivalry are displayed in various degrees in those plays, the principal concern of the story of rebellion and usurpation is loyalty: solving the problem of obedience/disobedience, of who should be followed. Thus, the cycle served to reaffirm and support the established cultural system and government of the time. The plays reassured their audience that this system worked and that they were safe within it, drawing on the traditional culture that all Englishman shared: they should follow the one who maintains the chivalric system, which Elizabeth I supported throughout most of her reign. Nonetheless, Tylliard also admits that Shakespeare and his contemporaries were more than familiar with the Machiavellian doctrine which diametrically opposes the medieval concept of order that he contends the history plays reflect. The presence of that ideology and its potential influence on Shakespeare’s plays is easily accepted by many scholars today. In his article “Richard Versus Bolingbroke: Heaven Versus Machiavelli?” G. Noon aims to reveal that the medieval view that the universe was properly ordered according to a “Great Chain of Being” had been disproved during the reign of Elizabeth’s father. Henry VIII had “dislodge[d] the Holy Father from his spiritual position and install[ed] himself as Head of the Church in England…[a transgression that]… marked a ‘profound act of treason’ against the Divine Order” and which should have had “direct consequences” for his realm. Yet it did not have such dire consequences. Henry lived to a ripe, old age and ruled till he died. Nobody deposed him. Later the Pope failed to foster rebellion among his subjects, revealing that the strict medieval system was no longer accepted without question. Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard and Bolingbroke do exactly that: they question the system. By acknowledging a more Machiavellian view of human affairs, Noon goes on to argue, the text challenges the established medieval system, thus exposing Shakespeare’s own rebellion. Notwithstanding, it is very doubtful that Elizabeth’s loyal subjects accepted the possibility that they were under the rule of a dynasty that had abandoned the grace of God. Even though the characters in the two parts of Henry IV bring the political reality discussed in the Italian treatise to the forefront of the play, they are framed by the traditional

chivalric system. What the audience gets to see through these characters are moments of Machiavellianism, moments in which the self-interest of others leads to deceit and trickery and a break with the principles of chivalry. It ensues from the exposed above that there is no final answer to whether Shakespeare advocated the Machiavellian world view. Shakespeare’s audience was bound to notice the use of the chivalric practices and the endorsement of medieval values which were prominently featured in the plays. There is no use ignoring the orthodox in favour of the rebellious or the shocking. Once aware of the presence of the conventional in the Tetralogy we are forced to approach any subversive modern elements from this perspective; looking for that particular case in which the political principle expounded by Machiavelli in The Prince threatens chivalry. Subversion, then, appears only momentary. To conclude, we may say that The Second Tetralogy can be described as the dramatisation of a medieval story of monarchic subversion. Regarding the question why Shakespeare wrote history plays on men’s fascination with politics, suffice it to say that if comedy is that form of drama which concerns itself with the social man, and tragedy with the moral or ethical man, then history is, above all, an exploration of human political behaviour, of the desire for power, of men's response to gaining it and to being deprived of it. Power in English history meant kingship, and the relationship between the theoretical amplitude of the office and the human limitation of the man who holds it. Shakespeare's use of history consists, then, in selecting, shaping, amplifying, and frequently in adding to chronicle material in order to intensify concentration on political issues and on their human consequences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY • Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Chatto & Windus, 1964. • Campbell, L. B. Shakespeare’s Histories: Mirrors of Elizabethan Policy. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1978. • Noon, G. “Richard Versus Bullingbroke: Heaven Versus Machiavelli?” English Studies in Africa 32 (1989): (41-52). • Smallwood, R. ‘Shakespeare's Use of History’. In S. Wells (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge University Press. (146-152) • http://www.mala.bc.ca/~Johnstoi/eng366/roses.htm