RICE UNIVERSITY Public and Private Life in Shakespeare's English History Plays by Carol Anita Little A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts Thesis Director's signature: Houston, Texas May, 1970 ABSTRACT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE IN SHAKESPEARE'S ENGLISH HISTORY PLAYS Carol Anita Little The purpose of this thesis is to show that the contrast between public and private life serves as a unifying theme in the eight plays that make up the two tetralogies (the three parts of Henry VI, and Richard III; and, Richard II, the two parts of Henry IV, and Henry V). An understanding of this dualism between public and private life may also contribute to the reader's appreciation of the social, political, and intellectual milieu in which the plays were written and may increase his understanding of the characters' psychological motivations. The first chapter is introductory in nature, setting forth the major features of the social and political theories which, for the Elizabethans, defined the public world. Marriage and the use of particular types of rhetoric are introduced in this chapter as "indicators" of a proper balance (or lack of it) between public and private portions of the characters' lives. The second chapter develops in greater detail the most important of these "indicators,1 the royal marriage. A character's marriage may serve as symbol of his private life indicating whether private matters are kept in a properly subordi¬ nate position, or the marriage may mirror or serve as analogue to his public life. Chapter III explores the desire for escape from public duties and re¬ sponsibilities that so many of the public figures in the histories exhibit. The type of escape desired is particularly interesting; it is most often escape into a world of the imagination, into dreams or into play-acting and make-believe. A detailed reading of Act I, scene ii of Richard III makes up the final chapter. This is an attempt to illustrate the added significance that may be gained through a consideration of the public/private theme in the history plays. CONTENTS Chapter I: The Public World ....... 1 Chapter II: The Royal Marriage 22 Chapter III: Escapism 41 Chapter IV: Richard and Anne 60 Bibliography 72 CHAPTER I: THE PUBLIC WORLD Of the ten plays in the Shakespeare canon that have English history as their theme, eight fall into two groups of four closely linked plays: the three parts of Henry VI, and Richard III; and Richard II, the two parts of Henry IV, and Henry V. Further, the two tetralogies make a single unit for they deal with a continuous period of history that is meant to be seen in its entirety. These plays present the period of civil strife between the houses of Lancaster and York (the Wars of the Roses) with the causes and the final resolution of that conflict. The second half of the story is dealt with in the first tetralogy. Some years later Shakespeare presented to his audiences the events leading up to the civil disorder that characterizes the Henry VI plays. But even though the plays were not written in chronological order, one may safely say that Shakespeare intended them to be seen as a unit. The plays of the first tetral¬ ogy refer repeatedly to events that were to make up the second group of plays. The opening lines of 1 Henry VI recall events only considered in the last play to be written, Henry V: Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night! Comets importing change of times and states, Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky, And with them scourge the bad, revolting stars That have consented unto Henry's death! King Henry the Fifth, too famous to live long! England ne'er lost a king of so much worth. 1 2 And in the closing lines of Henry V, as Professor Tillyard notes, Shakespeare implies the continuity of the two tetralogies and accepts responsibility for all eight plays:^ Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd king Of France and England, did this king succeed; Whose state so many had the managing, That they lost France and made his England bleed: Which oft our stage hath shown; and for their sake In your fair minds let this acceptance take. Since these eight plays were seemingly intended as a unit, it is only reasonable to read them as one. Such reading reveals unifying patterns of imagery and thematic concepts as well as historically continuous subject matter. One of the thematic concepts that is observable in all the plays is that of the public life and its relationship to private life. This theme is particularly evident in the presentations of the kings themselves, but it appears in the lives of other public figures as well. The pervasiveness of the theme of public life versus private life in the plays which compose the two tetralogies is, partially at least, a result of the Elizabethan concern with the we 11-governed state and the ideal ruler. It seems very likely that Shakespeare's history plays had a didactic purpose. In portray¬ ing the causes and horrors of civil war on stage Elizabethan playwrights warned their audiences of the eviI that could result from rebellion. 3 A didactic intent on the part of Shakespeare would imply that there was, for him, a proper rela¬ tionship between the public and private parts of the life of a public figure. And the plays bear this out. There is a proper balance between public and private / 3 life to be defined from the examples presented in the Histories. But to define this balance one must first consider the public world of Shakespeare's English history plays. The concept of order in the plays is indispensable to an apprecia¬ tion of the proper relationship of public to private life . Doubtless, the theme of order is the greatest single theme to be found in the Histories; it defines the public world of the plays. This theme has been thoroughly investigated by many scholars, and a review of some of the major critical commentary on the concept of social and political order in the Histories will be useful. The most common viewpoint is that which defines the world order of the Histories according to the political and social orthodoxies of Shakespeare's day. This is the basis of E. M. W. Tillyard's book, The Elizabethan World Picture. He explains the concepts of the "Great Chain of Being" and the correspondent planes on which the universe was thought to be organized. Man, of course, occupied the central position in the chain, being between and yet linked to both the beasts and the angels. Correspondences were recognized between objects or beings which occupied the same place with respect to their particular planes. As Til I yard says: "God among the angels or all the works of creation" occupies the same position as "the sun among the stars, fire among the elements, the king in the state, the head in the body, justice among the virtues, the lion among the beasts, [or] the eagle among the birds." That these commonly held notions are evident in the history plays has been proved. One need only look at i 4 the comparison of the state to a beehive in Henry V or to the many instances in which correspondences form the basis of imagery . The king is often spoken of as a lion, the sun, a rose, or an eagle, and he is frequently being urged to be God¬ like in his exercise of power. The Elizabethans considered rebellion the greatest of sins for it destroyed all order and virtue . It was an example of the Luciferian sin of Pride and ushered in again that chaos from which God's created order had originally rescued the world. The doctrine of Divine Right was also current in Shakespeare's day,^ and it, of course, augmented the horror of rebellion since opposition to a divinely appointed king had to be viewed as opposition to God himself. The only legiti¬ mate method of dealing with an unjust king was non-resistance. As John of Gaunt says to the injured Duchess of Gloucester: God's is the quarrel; for God's substitute, His deputy anointed in his sight, Hath caused his death: the which if wrongfully, Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift An angry arm against His minister. (Richard II, I .ii.37-41). The whole of this theory has become increasingly commonplace to students of Shakespeare and of the Renaissance in general. The danger at present is in taking Tillyard's analysis of Shakespeare's political concepts and themes to be the total answer. To place Shakespeare without reservation always on the side of order and stability, to label him "pro-establishment" seems an oversimplification. One need look no farther than 1 Henry IV for an example. The similitude of the situations of Henry Bolingbroke when he rebelled against / 5 Richard II and Hotspur in his rebellion against Henry IV is noted in the play. Yet Shakespeare's treatment of these two rebels is not the same. Bolingbroke is given a generally sympathetic presentation—the legitimacy of his complaints and the appropriateness of his conduct are emphasized. Hotspur is treated as a hot¬ headed, blood-thirsty young militant. Shakespeare undeniably considers and portrays his characters and situations individually. To say he always took the part of the state against the rebels and usurpers, like a good Elizabethan, is not consistent with the evidence presented in the plays.