A Poetics Of The Elizabethan Theatre Is

Inseparable, In Crucial Respectss, From A Poetics Of Power. Essay, Research Paper

To near the above treatment it must foremost be made clear what is meant by & # 8220 ; poetics. & # 8221 ; Todorov, in his book & # 8220 ; Introduction to Poetics & # 8221 ; ( pg.7 ) defines poetics as a & # 8220 ; name for everything that bears on the creative activity or composing of plants holding linguistic communication at one time as their substance and as their instrument. & # 8221 ; This helps us to understand what is meant by & # 8220 ; A poetics of the Elizabethan Theatre & # 8221 ; & # 8211 ; an geographic expedition of all the external and internal influences that shaped and made the said theatre what it was & # 8211 ; but it is less helpful in seeking to measure what is meant by & # 8220 ; a poetics of power. & # 8221 ; However, with more idea, we can see that the above definition can be easy adapted to enable an reading of the significance of this phrase to be made. & # 8220 ; A poetics of power & # 8221 ; will be taken to intend an enquiry, basically, into the nature of power and its causes and effects, along with the inevitable moral inquiries which accompany it. More specifically it could be taken to intend an probe into the factors act uponing perceptual experiences of power in Elizabethan times. To get down to analyze whether a poetics of the theater is inseparable in any regard from a poetics of power it is helpful to look at the temper and society of Elizabeth I & # 8217 ; s reign and the originative period of Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s life, whose 2nd tetralogy, the history plays, this essay will on the whole dressed ore upon as representative of Elizabethan theatre ( whether this is in fact accurate is an interesting point, and so, as such, doubtless another essay. ) However, for the intent of this essay we will trust upon the grounds which suggests that Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s dramas, being widely documented as often performed and popular with wide-ranging audiences of the twenty-four hours, are likely to be reasonably characteristic of Elizabethan theater. At the clip Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s dramas were foremost being performed society was in the procedure of altering steadily and basically and it is widely believed that these alterations are reflected in the history plays. Between 1536 and 1556 it is estimated that one fifth of all available land changed custodies due to the disintegration of the monasteries under Henry VIII and the largest proportion of this land was granted to ignoble aristocracy and rich beefeaters. They set about making net income instead than simply subsistence out of the land. This new category became widely known as the enterprising or & # 8220 ; new aristocracy & # 8221 ; along with people who had been ennobled since the beginning of Henry VIII & # 8217 ; s reign. They began to derive in power during Elizabeth & # 8217 ; s reign, but their & # 8217 ; s was an economic and hence secular power as a airs to the & # 8220 ; divine & # 8221 ; or God-given power of the ancient aristocracy who achieved their place in society through the Torahs of sequence. This is reflected in a popular adage of the twenty-four hours, & # 8220 ; As riseth my good So riseth my blood. & # 8221 ; The ancient aristocracy felt threatened by this new group of & # 8220 ; saucy nouveau-riche courtiers & # 8221 ; and much was made of their selfish profiteering ways. They resented the attending the queen gave to this group and the Dukes of Norfolk and Sussex are reputed to hold led a cabal which desired to retain the priviledges of the old nobility. Elizabeth tried to pacify them by affording them new priviledges in tribunal but there was changeless tenseness between the two groups and even a ( failed ) revolution by some of the old nobility in 1572. Along with these jobs the gradual eroding of the feudal system was besides doing great alteration and some unrest in society. Elizabeth & # 8217 ; s power was mostly based upon interceding between these two groups and guaranting that neither became powerful plenty to dispute her autarchy. Her regulation can hence be seen as slightly unstable and the upset and struggle prevalent in the societal order of the twenty-four hours becomes evident. Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s history dramas can be seen to mirror this province of personal businesss slightly, although whether this would hold been evident to a big portion of an audience of the twenty-four hours will be looked at subsequently. In Richard II we see an uneffective King presiding over mounting convulsion. The really first scene affords us a position of two Lords impeaching each other of high lese majesty over the slaying of a 3rd. Immediately a image of upset, underarm traffics and uneasiness is conveyed to us. Soon we are to larn that the King himself is believed to hold been involved in the aforesaid slaying further adding to the perfidy already evident. The ordered & # 8221 ; Garden of England & # 8221 ; is non as it should be. When Bolingbroke is banished and Gaunt later takes to his deathbed we begin to understand how deep the dissatisfaction with Richard & # 8217 ; s regulation is. Gaunt proclaims to Richard & # 8220 ; Thy deathbed is no lesser than thy land Wherein thou liest in repute sick & # 8221 ; We besides learn of Richard & # 8217 ; s fiscal problems, foremost on the intelligence of Gaunt & # 8217 ; s at hand decease as Richard plans to allow his lands in order to pay for the planned Irish war, and besides in Gaunt & # 8217 ; s celebrated line & # 8220 ; Landlord art 1000 now of England, non king: & # 8221 ; Richard & # 8217 ; s regulation is get downing to look more and more troubled and as a male monarch he is seemingly really unpopular. It would non be true to state that Elizabeth was an unpopular sovereign but in an progressively secular society inquiries were get downing to be asked about the Godhead right to bossy regulation which we can see parallelled in the struggle over the inquiry of Richard & # 8217 ; s go oning claim to the throne. Although the older Lords such as York and Gaunt, before his decease, are good cognizant of Richard & # 8217 ; s human insufficiency as a male monarch, they represent the old order in keeping that & # 8221 ; God & # 8217 ; s anointed deputy & # 8221 ; can non be questioned. In Elizabethan society of the twenty-four hours the old nobility were besides keeping that power could merely be God-given and non acquired by other agencies. They wanted alteration kept to a lower limit and besides by and large objected to religious reform which the new aristocracy favoured and advanced. The old aristocracy in both the drama and the modern-day Elizabethan societal order epitomised the old order which was being of all time more often challenged by more secularly minded groups, including both the new nobility and the multitudes. Richard ne’er sees his power as being in any uncertainty at all despite the problems in his tribunal. Whether this is because he is incognizant of the earnestness of the problems he faces despite Gaunt & # 8217 ; s warnings, & # 8220 ; England, edge in with the exultant sea, Whose rocky shore beats back the covetous besieging Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With ink-black smudges and icky parchment bonds: & # 8221 ; or because he sees his regulation, unwisely, as unquestionable can be debated but both would look to be true if we look at the text. Richard leaves Gaunt & # 8217 ; s deathbed crying & # 8220 ; Art thou a moonstruck lean-witted sap & # 8230 ; .. & # 8221 ; and even when all appears lost in Wales after his military personnels have deserted him he refuses to accept at hand licking, demanding & # 8220 ; Is non the King & # 8217 ; s name twenty thousand names? & # 8221 ; He appears to believe some other force will salvage him, viz. godly Providence, despite his deficiency of an ground forces and his deep unpopularity with his topics. His impending day of reckoning is mostly as a consequence of his involuntariness to mind advice and his foolish actions of ostracizing Bolingbroke and disfranchising him of his estate, although this is evidently the straw that breaks the camel & # 8217 ; s back. What contributed to it was his refusal to adequately see the sentiments of the aristocracy, particularly in respect to the attendings and priviledges accorded to his & # 8220 ; ground forces of adulators & # 8221 ; including Bushy, Bagot and Green between whom and the new nobility obvious analogues can be drawn, and the sentiments of his common topics besides & # 8220 ; whom he hath taxed half to decease & # 8221 ; to fund his extravagance. Elizabeth & # 8217 ; s reign, although trying to intercede between categories, served in the long term the dominant category ; the new or & # 8220 ; enterprising & # 8221 ; aristocracy, and her dearly-won foreign wars, particularly with the Spanish, along with the changeless outgo involved in repressing the Scots and the Irish forced her to sell crown lands and often left her with no option but to plead with the Parks for excess grants who so had to enforce new revenue enhancements to pay for them. Although Elizabeth managed to obtain this money and to pay her military personnels it sever

ely weakened her position and eventually led to civil war which, although it was not imminent when he was writing, Shakespeare may have conceivably foreseen the possibility of. Despite the growth of England’s population, trade, overseas colonies, and general wealth in “the Golden Era of the Elizabethans” this was no longer enough to ensure the basis of state power without domestic harmony, much as Richard’s divine right was no longer enough to ensure his autocracy when faced with similar problems. Shakespeare’s plays could well be seen to be pondering how much longer such rule could continue. The cultural setting of the second tetralogy could therefore well be seen, whilst primitive, to mirror the degenerating society of the day and the weakening of the monarchy that ensued. Bolingbroke appears, as both a popular hero and the paragon of the nobility, to be the answer to England’s prayers. Even before he usurps Richard’s throne however, we start to become aware that his ambitions are not purely patriotic and selfless. Although he claims to come originally to claim what is proclaimed rightly his; the estates of Lancaster, it quickly becomes apparent that he seeks rather more than this, namely the crown, and that this was probably his intention in the first place. He has obtained some of his support therefore by deceit and this tarnishes him before he is even crowned. He has also shown disregard for the power of the King by defying his banishment, which serves to undermine his own power when King. He can only ensure power by killing Richard and even then he has no exclusive right to the throne, and by the very way he has become king he has fundamentally changed the nature of kingship, changing it from a divine right to a secular position based upon the support of his subjects. He has proved that the monarch is not protected by divine providence and does not have the automatic right to rule: in short that he/she is challengable. Richard’s public humiliation in the street shows how little respect the masses have for the notion of “God’s Deputy on Earth” after he has transgressed certain boundaries and may well have echoed the sentiments of a large part of Shakespeare’s early audiences which are reported to have been made up of many classes, with the greatest proportion being made up of craftsmen and their apprentices; hired labourers and household servants were next, with the merchant classes coming a poor third. If we take the ensuing Revolution of 1640 as evidence we can assume that the masses were likely to have been starting to become more and more dissatisfied with the social order of the day at this time and fundamental ideas of power were almost certainly beginning to be challenged more widely. Despite Henry’s widesread popularity which appeared to permeate both extremes of the social spectrum, the question of whether his accession is a dawn or a twilight for the monarchy is being asked even in the concluding scenes of Richard II when Richard prophesises that Bolingbroke ” is come to open The purple testament of bleeding war” and we see a plotted rebellion before the end of the play. In the opening scenes of Henry IV we are presented with a backdrop of war and further unrest and rebellion in the kingdom. Henry is having trouble maintaining his power for reasons foreseen in the previous play. Images of decay and degeneration pervade the play with an allegory being made of the inn where we meet the carriers; ” this house is turned upside down since Robin Ostler died.” and “your chamber-lie breeds fleas like a loach” being typical statements of the conversation between them. Henry is also described as “that canker Bolingbroke” to Richard’s “sweet lovely rose:” memories are obviously short and Henry is facing rebellion once more from dissatisfied courtiers. Hotspur, Northumberland and Worcester talk of plucking up “drowned honour by the locks.” This poetics of power takes account of the possibility of resistance; it is a condition of its existance as power. In this vein we meet Falstaff for the first time; with his total lawlessness and disrespect for authority he could be seen to represent a growing area of public opinion in Elizabethan times: it is worth remembering that audiences are said to have clamoured for him. We also encounter Hal for the first time here. He looks as though he could be going to cause his father some trouble and is behaving irresponsibly much as Richard did. He does however offer us some hope for the future when he talks of “My reformation, glittering o’er my fault” and promises to be “Redeeming time when men think least I will” On the whole though the monarchy’s power seems to be waning in Henry IV as England sinks further into chaos, from the old, nostalgically remembered old order into contemporary disorder. Even this new breed of king is proving to be much the same as the others, a feeling no doubt empathised with by audiences. A rather different question is being asked here about power. Not only is the divine right of the old order to power being queried but the authority and feasability of any absolutism is being examined. A flicker of hope for the monarchy appears in the shape of Hal who is the legal heir to the throne and very quickly distances himself from his dubious past and cronies. He is a well liked king and a man of the people which helps to legitimate his power even though he is unequivocally King. He changes the nature of kingship still further here by proclaiming himself a man like any other; again similarities with Richard’s speech just before he is deposed can be seen; but Hal promulgates “I think the King is but a man as I am ” in disguise at Agincourt at the height of his power. Regardless of his popularity, efficacy and relative humility however, Hal’s authority is called into question by Shakespeare, this time in the shape of Williams. Whilst Falstaff’s debauchery shows a disdain for the authority of Henry IV, Williams’ is a reasoned argument which he puts forward to the King just before the battle. Hal has just proclaimed himself a man like his soldiers, but gone on to say that death is no threat to them as they fight in a good cause with clear consciences. Williams reminds him of the reality of death on the battlefield and of the widows and orphans left behind and in so doing makes Hal morally responsible for their suffering. A parallel can be drawn here with the thousands of British soldiers engaged in battle in Europe during the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign, but more importantly Williams inadvertantly asks yet another question on the subject of power; whether anyone can have the right to force a man to fight and die on a battlefield. Henry is unable to provide adequate answers to these questions At the end of the play Williams’ glove is filled with crowns – the play on words here is almost certainly intentional – to signify a changing power structure to come. The play (Henry V) cannot settle on an answer to the problem of what it means to be King, but the whole tetralogy poses questions concerning the proper location of power in the present and the future. It affords the audience a view of a new idea of histories made by people. Resistance of power is a requirement of the plot, and the questions on power are no longer metaphysical but political and therefore inclined towards struggle. Whether this was obvious to an Elizabethan audience however is debatable. Theatre then was under state censorship and any material considered subversive or as asking the “wrong” questions would have been unlikely to have been allowed to be widely performed as the history plays were. Elizabeth I is however reputed to have said “I am Richard II; know ye not that?” and as we mentioned earlier,audiences clamoured for Falstaff. Whether it is only with hindsight that the possibilities of allusions to the Tudor monarchy become apparent or not, there is no doubt in my mind that a poetics of; or namely a thorough inquiry into the nature and meaning of power, is widely recognisable and indeed largely the lifeblood of the history plays and consequently, it would be reasonable to assume, the Elizabethan theatre as a whole. SORRY, NO BIBLIOGRAPHY IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS ESSAY MARKED 70%