This dissertation aims to examine how Shakespeare represents the history of England in his First Tetralogy comprising of Henry VI, Part I, 2 and 3 (1591-1592) and King Richard III (1592). Shakespeare wrote his first four English history plays at the beginning of his career and dramatized the history from the death of Henry V in 1422 to the death of Richard III and the triumph of Richmond as Henry VII, the first Tudor king of England, in 1485. Like his contemporary dramatists, Shakespeare’s writing about England was influenced by the social and political concerns of his age, and bound up with the anxiety about the war with Spain and the controversy over the royal succession during the last years of Elizabeth I. This explains why history plays became popular in the 1590s and then declined soon after the death of Elizabeth I.
The history play as a dramatic genre was a new development in Elizabethan England and had no classical precedents. The category of Histories was first introduced in the First Folio of 1623, and Shakespeare’s ten English history plays were listed as such. But a number of plays categorized as Histories had been classified previously as tragedies in their quarto texts published during Shakespeare’s lifetime. King Richard III is a good example: the Quarto edition was entitled The Tragedy of Richard the Third, while the Folio edition The Life and Death of Richard the Third. Such a fusion of histories with tragedies can be seen as one of the characteristics of writings in Renaissance England: historical events and characters were generally used in a variety of genres, and English history in particular was a favourite subject for the dramatists.
There are three significant elements in Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy. Firstly, there have been controversies about whether his First Tetralogy reflects the Tudor Myth. The First Tetralogy was influenced by the contemporary concept of history. The Tudor dynasty ended the civil war which was caused by the Wars of the Roses, and needed to strengthen the legitimacy of the new dynasty by way of suppressing the power of nobles. Polydore Vergil’s chronicle was written by command of Henry VII, and the majority of history books were produced to defend the validity of the Tudor dynasty. These history works were certain to have the medieval perspective, and Shakespeare used them as the main sources for his First Tetralogy. The providential perspective of the Middle Ages regarded the Tudor dynasty as the result of providence.
There have been various opinions about whether Shakespeare demonstrates the validity of the Tudor dynasty. Aside from the problem about serving the validity, his history plays were generally considered to be political in Renaissance England. Because it seems that Shakespeare takes an ambiguous position, it is not certain that Shakespeare supports the validity of the Tudor dynasty. However, it is indisputable that his First Tetralogy has the intention to prevent the failure of the practical politics.
Secondly, Shakespeare’s history plays have a didactic intention reflecting the present circumstances through the past. Moral instruction in history can be found in contemporary literary works such as The Mirror for Magistrates and Gorboduc. In particular, The Mirror for Magistrates is composed of the lives and tragic ends of historical figures and kings in England. This work has the purpose of advising good politics and warning to posterity. The didactic intention of the literature influences the description of history exceedingly and is also reflected in Shakespeare’s history plays. Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy presents history as a mirror to posterity.
Shakespeare depicts figures such as Henry VI and Richard III who are distant from the veritable model of kings in the First Tetralogy. Henry VI is described as an incompetent and effeminate king and Richard III as a tyrant who murdered brothers and nephews to usurp the throne. As a result, Shakespeare suggests the issues with regard to the succession to the throne of Elizabeth I. In addition, by representing improper kings, Shakespeare encourages the spectators to reconsider the veritable king.
Lastly, Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy, which was performed in the late reign of Elizabeth I, connotes the effeminate times. In Renaissance England women’s roles are restricted in the domestic territory. Thus Men, who thought women are inferior and should be subject to men, were obsessed with misogynous and ironical feelings under the reign of the queen. It seems that literary works in Renaissance England as well as Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy reflect the inconsistent feelings and the atmosphere of the time.
Therefore, it is important to consider how these feelings affect the representation of women in Shakespeare’s history plays. Shakespeare includes the failure of the effeminate ruler in Henry VI series. Masculine women such as Margaret and Joan control the events in the First Tetralogy. Masculine women and an effeminate ruler can be regarded as the reflection of the reign of Elizabeth I.
Unlike other history plays in Renaissance England, Shakespeare situates the masculine women, who menace the world of men, in the center of the play. Thus women become paradoxical in the play. Women who are enervated and powerless should be controlled by men while women who have power to resist male patriarchy should endure scorn. In the First Tetralogy, the masculine women are forced to be exiled and scorned in the name of witches and harlots. Due to the ends of women Shakespeare can be criticized for the negative representation of women. But taking the social status of women in Renaissance England into consideration, women who were created by Shakespeare can be evaluated in terms of the positive aspect.
In conclusion, unlike most Renaissance history plays, Shakespeare’s have been performed since they premiered. Because Shakespeare exhorts the spectators to meditate the present and to communicate with the future, his history plays are valuable until now. Shakespeare encourages the spectators to understand Richard III’s words “What I have been, and what I am”, thereby emphasizing the role of an individual, he positions an individual not merely as an appendage but as a principle mover.