Joachim Uchechukwuka Ogodi March 31, 2014 Shakespeare Hornback

The Power Politics of Late Shakespearean Villainy

The concept of power politics speaks to the use of political savvy in order, in some way, augment the power held by oneself or another person. Now, the concept of associating Shakespearean works with this employ is nothing new. Many noted Shakespearean scholars from Womersley to Cordell have often made use of political commentary in order to offer further critique on Shakespearean conventions. In fact, the use of power politics as a means of delving deeper into Shakespeare's works becomes a necessity when considering characters such as King John, MacBeth, and Coriolanus. These characters are noted for engaging in acts that would make many shrink back, while inspiring some semblance of appreciation of just the amount of unmitigated gall required to pull off some of the things these characters did. What becomes even more amazing is considering that the gall displayed by some of Shakespeare's most, shall we say, politically ambitious characters could be found in some of the key political figures of Shakespeare's own time. Romantic entanglements, familial conspiracies, class realignment, incestuous relationships and even murder find their place in the annals of 16-17th Century British political history. Since the study of Shakespeare through the lens of politically-minded analysis can prove to be effective in helping to examine some of the finer points of his works, there must be some element of said works that would lend itself

to the aforementioned analytical bent. Considering that many of the more ambitious political moves were executed by villains of Shakespeare such as Hamlet's Claudius, or King Lear's Cornwall, it stands to reason that examining the political motivations, ambitions, and general view of the villains of two particular plays in the anthology of Shakespeare's later works, a time in England's history of great political transition, in his life when he found himself departing from the pro-royalist, pro-order, Elizabethan outlook which largely defined his earlier works. Richard II or The Tragedy of Richard II as the play was called in later Shakespearean folios, recounts the events of the last two years of the young king, Richard II's rule. This play is taken as one of Shakespeare's histories as it makes use of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles, a primary source for many of Shakespeare's histories. Furthermore, in Richard II many contemporaries of Shakespeare as well as subsequent scholars believed that an analog to the rise and subsequent reign of Queen Elizabeth could be found. These perceived parallels extended to her relative youth at the time of her ascension to the throne, her tendency to rely upon appeals to emotion, fears over the future political stability of the crown given the lack of any progenies, as well political instability resulting from internal strife culminating in a failed overthrow attempt and successful, albeit heart-wrenching (for Queen Elizabeth) assassination. A long-standing anecdotes prevails in the annals of English archival socio-history that, upon reviewing source material from which much of the material in the play, Henry II, was drawn Queen Elizabeth remarked to her archivist,I am Richard II, know ye not that? In fact, the

notion of Richard II being extremely relevant, almost eerily relevant, to the state of late 16th century English politics was so strong that supporters of the Earl of Essex's plans to supplant Elizabeth I paid to have the play staged shortly before the uprising that led to the Earl's beheading in 1601. This same Earl was at one time a trusted and favored courtesan of Queen Elizabeth and was awarded numerous monopolies and military appoints despite his displayed ineptitude. In fact, the events leading up to the attempted overthrow and death of the Earl of Essex were precipitated by the Queen's insistence on continuing to show political, military, and economic favor in the face of mounting proof of an inability to aptly perform the duties of a person with claim to said favors. In fact, the Earl at one point deserted a military position and this was the straw that broke the camel's back of irresponsibility. This led to the house-arrest and loss of monopolies, that, from the Earl's perspective, necessitated his overthrow attempt, his subsequent death, and the Queen's subsequent grief. In King Richard II we find many potential political analogs to the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The chief among these analogs was the concern about a rightful heir to inherit the kingdom in the event of the monarch's death. We find a royal who rises to the crown through a series of peculiar events, with the result being a constant challenge as to whether or not the ruler is legitimate. Now, the play covers only the last few years of the rule of Richard II, a time when some scholars believe he may have descended into madness. But, Shakespeare does not necessarily present him as such. Many of the proroyalist leanings that were evident in many of his works, both early and late, prevail. This

can be seen from the first scene, where Richard II is seated majestically and is essentially called upon by Henry of Bolingbloke, the Duke of Hereford and Thomas de Mowbray, the 1st Duke of Norfolk, to act in a Solomon-like capacity, presiding over the issues of nobles in his realm. Were he the absolute madman that some scholars suppose, he would most certainly not have been called upon to oversee the legal squabbles between two nobles, one of whom had a close claim to his own throne. What the play more than likely seeks to reveal, or ends up revealing about Richard II's character is that he was merely a child with a man's mantle thrust upon him. Now, he may have been an extremely skilled child, as we can see in his involvement in the suppression of a peasant rebellion at the age of 14. Still, his tendency to vacillate in the face of tough decisions up to and including the one that would ultimately seal his fate, proved his youth. Richard II reads as a cautionary tale about the consequences of exposing those not prepared therefore to the immense responsibility that comes with exercising political clout at the highest levels of governance. Richard became king at the age of 10, was called on to settle a major dispute in his realm at the age of 14 and was consequently forced to develop a personal political philosophy before he was out of puberty. Richard II was exposed to circumstances that cemented his character as a king at a time when he should have still been developing his identity as a man. He saw distrust in his subject's eyes when he attempted to assure them that he sympathized with their cause despite his higher socio-economic standing. Lacking in life experience, he was forced to build his political power house on a shaky foundation littered with mistrust, hard-heartedness,

without the strength of mind and self-confidence to stand as a man. Those are things cultivated over having to live with the consequences of difficult decisions sans a royal court paid to siphon off any feelings of resentment or contempt that would quicken said cultivation. In Richard II, Shakespeare revealed what happens when someone is allowed to wield a grenade launcher without having been certified to carry a starter pistol. In the words of the famous comedian Kevin Hart, [he]...wasn't ready! The early 17th century stands as a significant moment in Britain's history. With the inevitable end of Queen Elizabeth I's reign as death's cold grip began to tighten around the neck of the Virgin Queen, the issue of her having no progenies and as such no one to succeed her royal role threatened the political stability of the British isles. Queen Elizabeth having had no children, combined with the fact that there were multiple potential candidates capable of ruling Britain presented the possibility of a tumultuous power vacuum before the next seat warmed the royal throne. Since Queen Elizabeth refused to name a successor and would not stand for public speculation on the part of any of her advisors, the task fell to her senior advisor, Robert Cecil. His secretive meddling and meetings on the matter were all in the service of having James VI of Scotland assume the royal mantle. Now, James was only able to ascend to the throne because of Robert Cecil's coaching in how he should approach the Queen and make himself an agreeable figure in her eyes and her court. This was achieved with such marvelously clandestine duplicitousness that the Queen herself remarked, "So trust I that you will not doubt but

that your last letters are so acceptably taken as my thanks cannot be lacking for the same, but yield them to you in grateful sort.", namely that his correspondence with her had been a welcome bright spot and worthy of all thanks. This she, the anglican Queen of England, wrote to the catholic ruler of a Catholic State; even in the face of her use of suppression tactics against the Catholic sections of England. Suffice it to say, the political happenings of this time would have had a profound effect on Shakespeare as he was a favorite of Queen Elizabeth's and considered a personal playwright to the court. It was she who ensured his continued success and had paved the way for him to acquire the vast riches that had allowed him to go from aspiring writer and actor to eventual co-owner of the Globe Theatre. She had been an passionate supporter of the arts and had allowed for many playwrights and contemporaries of Shakespeare to put on productions that would be considered risqu even in this day and age. All that Shakespeare was able to accomplish was a direct result of the favor he found in Queen Elizabeth's eyes. With the coronation of James VI, or as he is known in his capacity as King of England, James I, some fear must have arisen, especially considering that Shakespeare was a well-known member of the Anglican Church, and an adherent to Elizabethan social mores. Perhaps, the royalist sentiments of his earlier works and the clear distinction between an appreciation for good and abhorrence of evil characters in his later works (with few exceptions), is part of what pushed James to continue considering him an unofficial member of his court. Still, it was this political environment, complete with a new royal's ascension to the English crown that allowed for a play like

Othello to exist and thrive, and a character like Iago to enter into infamy. Iago reads as the amalgamation of every tool and trick in the power politics finesse players toolbox. He does not make use of any clout he holds apart from that which allows him to gain the ear of those most capable of exercising said clout in more traditional ways. Cassio loses his lieutenancy, Desdemona loses her life, Othello loses himself, and Iago comes away with nothing lost but the veil of shadows over his true intentions. Othello reveals another means putting pressure on one's adversaries to satisfy the deepest desires of one's hearts. These means find their parallel in the political goingson that directly preceded Shakespeare writing the play. Like Richard II, where political intrigue amounting to actions steeped in expressed violence found their parallel in the actions of the court (expulsions, assassinations, attempted overthrows), Othello shows scenes where backroom dealings, secret conversations and underground manipulations are the cause of suspended effects, with the root being Iago. Still, Iago seems almost dissociatively manipulative. He begins his deceptions out of pure jealously of Cassio for being favored for a military position over himself, seeking nothing more than to humiliate and alienate him from Othello. But, in the midst of his sustained conniving, Iago begins to become deception itself. Losing himself as a person, and being lost as a character while more and more morphing into a living metaphor for the use of deception and intrigue in all matters political. Unlike Richard II where one could find physical analogs corresponding to certain characters in the political discourse of that day (late 16th century England), no such analogs exist. At the time of Othello's writing, there were no people of

color in extremely high-ranking military/political position who were subject to undue manipulations. But, there was an aging Queen whose lack of luck with love had led to a child-less, spouse-less life. There was a royal advisor more concerned with the end of perpetuation of the royal line than the potential view of the means by which this might be accomplished, and there was another royal waiting in the wings for the chance to bring two realms, England and Scotland, into one by means of intrigue, flattery and dare I say it, manipulation. Othello was emblematic of the power politics of the time in which it was written not because there were any 1-to-1 relations to characters and people, but because the central issue of subtle subjugation found itself represented in the actions of the power players of early 17 th century England.

Richard II and Othello both tackle difficult political situations as lived out in the lives of both fantastical yet extremely relatable characters. Whether one decide to examine the issues brought to light through either the protagonist or antagonist's perspective lens, one still finds people that can be found in the average person's day-today life, whether that life involves hostile socio-political take-overs, dramatic romantic unveilings or subjects of a more pedestrian nature. Richard II gives us the story of what happens when a child is forced to grow up, when friends become enemies, when resentment gives rise to betrayal, all things that could happen in any person's life, yet it happens in a fantastical (yet historically accurate) setting. Othello introduces us to the likes of former friends pushed to the brink of madness and sociopathic behavior by little more than jealousy, pain and humiliation, and the like, while not sacrificing anything in

the way of storytelling despite the danger of crossing over from the relatable to the pedantic. Shakespeare deftly interpolates the high and the low in both of these later works, drawing on his extensive experience as an unofficial official member of Queen Elizabeth I's court, and yet his play reflect a view of the use of power that expresses a full tapestry of political complications in the use and potential abuse thereof. Where one, Richard II, reflects a more obvious, traditional exercise of power in the service of political ambitions rife with banishments, proposed executions and assassinations, another (Othello), shows how power can be exerted through the use of cunning, manipulation and duplicitousness. Each showed very different sides of the multiplicitous coin that is political intrigue, and both result in death. Through these very, and yet not quite so, different plays Shakespeare reveals how power politics can be shaped to the circumstance and when the fact that real-time analogs were in effect at the time of their writing, these plays stand as stellar examples of how a deep-thinking man facing his own mortality is able to examine the role of politics in his life, even as he perhaps feels some of his values shake or come into a properly-sharpened alignment.

I pledge that I have acted honorably___J-Gnz__.

101102 Samuel Schoenbaum, Richard II and the realities of Power. Cambrdige: Cambridge. (2004) pp. Ruth Underhill, Stage and State: The Censorship of Richad II, http://web.uvic.ca/~mbest1/ ISShakespeare/Resources/Essex/default.html Jonathan Bate, Soul of the Age. London: Penguin. (2008) pp. 256286. W.R. Barker, St Mark's or The Mayor's Chapel, Bristol, Formerly called the Church of the Gaunts. Bristol, 1892, pp.147148. Barker states Essex to have been confined in 1599 at Essex House by Sir Richard Berkeley Thomas Birch, Anthony Bacon, Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth: From the year 1581 til her Death in which The Secret Intrigues of her Court, And the Conduct of her Favourite, Robert Earl of Essex, both at Home and Abroad, Are Particularly Illustrated. From the Original Papers of his intimate Friend, Anthony Bacon, Esquire, And other Manuscripts never before published,Vol. II. London

George B. Stow, Stubbs, Steel and Richard II as Insane: The Origin and Evolution of an English Historiographical Myth, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 143, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), p. 601 Richard II: Act 1, Scene 1 HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y5_Kuw1tXM" https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=8Y5_Kuw1tXM
Correspondence of King James VI. of Scotland with Sir R. Cecil, ed. by J. Bruce (Camden Soc., 1861), p. xl. Kelsi Anderson, The History Novel: Where History is Made, pg. 106 Marie Rowlands, English Catholics in the Reign of Elizabeth, History Today (History Review 2007), http://www.historytoday.com/marie-rowlands/english-catholics-reign-elizabeth E.K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems Vol. 1, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1930, pg. 270-271