Shakespeare's Time

History is not just the events that took place; it’s the written account of what happened. Writers often put their own spin on the past, be it for political reasons or personal ones. Shakespeare isn’t excluded from the history altering group. His reason for tweaking history was to appease Queen Elizabeth I and then King James I, whom both he served. There are several plays in which this “tweaking” is obvious. On such altered account is in The Tragedy of Richard III. Shakespeare crafted Henry VII, Elizabeth I’s grandfather, to be a hero by killing Richard III and ending the War of the Roses between the house of York and house of Lancaster. Shakespeare was trying to show that the Tudor family, Elizabeth’s lineage, was powerful, as well as protectors of the innocent, therefore appeasing Queen Elizabeth.

            Richard III wasn’t the best leader, although he was not the barbaric man portrayed in The Tragedy of Richard III. He probably did murder the Princes of the Tower (Richard, Duke of York, and Edward V) so that he could become king. He also prepared to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, before his wife Anne died of an unknown illness (r3, Inc, par 30). He also killed Lord Hastings (PWH, par 2). An example of his barbaric nature as shown, when he was only Duke of Gloucester,  in Richard III is in act 3, scene 1,

Glou. Commend me to Lord William: tell him, Catesby,

His ancient knot of dangerous adversaries

 To-morrow are let blood at Pomfret-castle;

And bid my friend, for joy of this good news,

Give mistress Shore one gentle kiss the more.

Buck. Good Catesby, go, effect this business soundly.

Cate.  My good lords both, with all the heed I may.

Glou. Shall we hear from you, Catesby, ere we sleep?

Cate.  You shall, my lord.

Glou.  At Crosby Place, there shall you find us both.

Buck. Now, my lord, what shall we do, if we perceive

Lord Hastings will not yield to our complots?

Glou. Chop off his head, man; somewhat we will do:

And, look, when I am king, claim thou of me

The earldom of Hereford, and the moveables

Whereof the king my brother stood possess'd.

Buck. I'll claim that promise at your grace's hands.

Glou. And look to have it yielded with all willingness.

Come, let us sup betimes, that afterwards

We may digest our complots in some form.

(181-200)

            I found the evil nature of Richard III was presented well in Ian McKellen’s movie rendition of the play. McKellen portrayed him delectably devilish. McKellen’s Richard appears heartwarming for a moment, but it’s only a ruse. As soon as a friend or family member turns away, he addresses the camera to tell him his plot or opinions. His eyes when he commits the murders are hard and expressionless, which shows how little he cares for anyone around him. By the end of the film, as he falls to his death, there is a manic glint to his eye as if he doesn’t care that he’s about to breathe his last breath.

However, he was not as horrible as is often depicted. Richard III wasn’t nearly as greedy as other royalty were. In fact, the king refused money and insisted on their goodwill instead (r3, par 24). He also tried to stabilize the country and bring in wealth for all of Yorkshire and Northern England (Jokinen, par 1). He also founded the College of Arms, which is a library of all the nobles of English, Welsh, and Northern Irish blood and their coat of arms (College of Arms, par 1). This foundation is still in business today.  He also donated money to repair St. George's Chapel at Windsor, King's College in Cambridge, Barnard Castle, Sudeley Castle, Windsor Castle and Nottingham Castle (r3, par 25). Therefore, he was unjustly portrayed in Shakespeare’s play, The Tragedy of Richard III because Shakespeare focused on the king’s negative traits instead of including good aspects of his life.

Another king that has been unjustly portrayed in Shakespeare’s plays is the Scottish king, Macbeth. In Shakespeare’s play of the same name, the king is depicted as a manipulated man who becomes vile and villainous, as well as paranoid, due to of his wife and three witches. The only similarities between the two Macbeth’s (the literature king and the factual one) is that he did kill King Duncan I (BBC, par 4). Macbeth was a Christian man, who during his reign spread Christianity (NA, par 2).  He protected the monks who practiced this religion. However, he was ruthless in his reign. To gain the crown, he burned his cousin Gille Comgáin (h2g2, par 2).

Shakespeare wrote Macbeth to appease King James I, who was interested in witchcraft (par 17). Witchcraft is a prominent part of the play and in one particular scene, it helps plant the seeds of evil and paranoia into the heart of Macbeth,

1. Witch. Lesser than Macbeth, and greater.

2.Witch. Not so happy, yet much happier.

3. Witch. Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none:

So all hail, Macbeth and Banquo!

1. Witch. Banquo and Macbeth, all hail!

Macb. Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more:

By Sinel's death I know I am thane of Glamis;

But how of Cawdor? the thane of Cawdor lives,

A prosperous gentleman; and to be king

Stands not within the prospect of belief,

No more than to be Cawdor. Say from whence

You owe this strange intelligence? or why

Upon this blasted heath you stop our way

With such prophetic greeting? Speak, I charge you.

(I, iii, 65-78)

            I believe King James I would probably enjoy Ian McKellen’s portrayal of Macbeth. In the 1979 movie version, McKellen gives a bone-chilling performance as the title character. He spoke in a calm and collected voice as nervous sweat slicks his face. Thinking about the 3 witches warnings, mania and paranoia gleam in his eyes, even as he tried to stay calm and collected.  Macbeth then plots to keep the throne.

 I also think Shakespeare wanted to glorify one of Scotland’s great kings. By having Macbeth willing to do anything to keep his rule, this shows the strength and perseverance of the Scottish people. This would certainly appease the king.

            During Shakespeare’s time, there were many political events unfolding. Life was changing drastically. The bubonic plague was still running rampart, which caused the theatres to close at least one time. England had a queen ruling the country instead of a king. Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed for treason in 1587 and in 1588 there was the defeat of the Armada in the Anglo-Spanish war. 1598 brought the death of Phillip II of Spain. Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, thus James I becomes king. One of the biggest events unfolding before, during, and after Shakespeare’s time was the Reformation – also called the Catholic-Protestant struggle (Hooker, par 1). This was the bloody struggle between Catholics and Protestants as each religion tried to dominate the lands. I feel this war was ongoing because with each new ruler the belief system changed. When Mary Queen of Scots ruled, Catholicism was the favored creed. During Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, the Protestant church was the main religion (Elizabethan-Era, par 1).

England had many enemies during the rules of both Elizabeth I and James I. Elizabeth I’s rivals included Spain, France, Ireland, and Scotland. Under King James I, Scotland and Britain unite in both parliament and monarchy, thus leaving Spain, France, and Ireland as the enemy.

            The parliament worked with the monarchy to uphold the peace, advise others, and gather taxes. However, Queen Elizabeth I and King James I both had different ways of interacting with parliament (Sommerville, par 1). Queen Elizabeth had little interaction with her parliament. In fact, out of 45 years, only 3 years were spent in session. On the occasion that parliament did meet, Elizabeth I thought its main purpose was “to vote taxation” (par 7). The parliament, however, preferred to discuss matters concerning marriage, religion, and foreign policy (Weinick, par 2). They ignored the queen’s reluctance to discuss those topics.

 King James I met with his parliament fewer times than Queen Elizabeth I did. In fact, he met with parliament only 3 instances. So he didn’t have to meet with parliament, James I allowed general councils and lords to make decisions concerning their lands (Brown, Mann, and Tanner, par 1). These smaller meetings could gather quickly and allowed the king to have more control because it left out the middle man, the old fashioned parliament.

            It is the monarchy, not the parliament that affected Shakespeare’s work. He wrote his plays to appease his Queen and then his King. He wrote to honor his country and to honor the events of his country. Shakespeare was trying to capture his disdain for others countries ways of ruling as well as how wonderful it was to be ruled by the British. Shakespeare wanted those seeing his plays to know that Britain was the greatest place in the world and that its people were good rulers, even if the story has a different setting.   

He had to please the royalty or perhaps not be allowed to work at his craft.. The relationship he had with the ruling Queen and then the King of England differed. Queen Elizabeth was an avid theatre patron and supported the growth of the theaters. She appeared, however, to be indifferent to Shakespeare. He wrote his plays and she went to see them. Other than that, there was little interaction between the two. In fact, Shakespeare didn’t even write a eulogy for her after she died, which most poets did (SBT, par 1). There seems to have been a more intimate relationship between King James I and Shakespeare. After he wrote Macbeth, which was written especially for King James, the king gave his acting troupe money funds (Sfinas, par 1). When they changed their name to The Kings Company, the group received more funds. Shakespeare even references King James several times throughout Macbeth while he only indirectly mentions Queen Elizabeth in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. But, without either, Shakespeare could not have funded his plays and therefore the pieces would never have been created. A piece of literary history would have been missing and we wouldn’t have gotten to enjoy classic tales of love, revenge, and playful trickery.

Works Cited

Arms, College of. College of Arms. 16 October 2010 <http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/>.

Elizabethan-era. Religion in Elizabethan England. 16 October 2010 <http://www.elizabethan-

era.org.uk/religion-elizabethan-england.htm>.

h2g2. Edited Guide Entry. 16 October 2010 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4455434>.

Jokinen, Anniina. Luminarium. 11 April 2009. 16 October 2010

<http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/councilofnorth.htm>.

r3. Macbeth (c.1005 - 1057). 16 October 2010 <http://www.r3.org/basics/basic2.html#hastings

>.

Sfinas, Brian. Associated Content. 3 Auguest 2009. 16 October 2010

<ttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2003268/shakespeares_relationship_with_king.

html?cat=37>.

Shakespeare, William. "Macbeth." The Riverside Shakespeare. New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1997. 1360-1387.

Shakespeare, William. "The Tragedy of Richard II." The Riverside Shakespeare. New York:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997. 752-794.

Sommerville, J.P. Elizabeth I, Parliament, church and economy. 16 October 2010

<http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-16.htm>.

PWH. Back to Basics: A Series for Newer Members. 16 October 2010 <http://www.r3.org/basics/basic3.html>.