none

Abstract

Machiavelli creates his model of an ideal prince in his famous book The Prince. He abandons the Christian criteria set for a prince, such as generosity, morality, and piety. Instead, he claims that it is harmful for a prince to follow all the moral principles, and it is necessary for a prince to be well versed in the use of evil and treachery. Machiavelli’s contemporaries, including the Tudors, are shocked by his vision of a prince unfettered by the constraints of traditional morality. Most of the Tudors regard his doctrines as atheism and immorality. Only some accept certain parts of his doctrines. This thesis intends to explore how Shakespeare deals with Machiavellianism in his two tetralogies. Does Shakespeare agree with Machiavelli in the definition of an ideal prince? How does Shakespeare think of the pragmatism Machiavelli advocates?
Among the kings Shakespeare portrays in his two tetralogies, I choose King Richard III and Henry IV for my discussion, for these two kings correspond to the kinds of princes whom Machiavelli wants to offer advice to in his treaty, i.e., the new princes, or the princes who gain power recently. It is interesting that although both Richard III and Henry IV are usurpers and they both adopt Machiavellian statecraft, the way Shakespeare presents them proves very different. When portraying Richard III, Shakespeare follows the convention of the hero villain and makes him a stage Machiavelli. When portraying Bolingbroke, later Henry IV, he presents him as a man who revolts against the tyranny of his king, and a man who wins the crown with calmness, intelligence, and justice. Whenever Richard makes use of evil, he arouses detest and horror. When Henry adopts evil, it turns out to be necessary evil. However, the accounts and evidence recently found about Richard show us that the king, unlike what Shakespeare portrays, is not a hunchback, nor is he a murderous monster. On the contrary, he is a ruler of efficiency and responsibility. In my opinion, the reason why Shakespeare distorts Richard is that he intentionally portrays a king who fully demonstrates the dangerous teachings of Machiavelli in order to warn his contemporaries against the danger of accepting Machiavellianism. Obviously, he still cannot appreciate pragmatism and realism advocated by Machiavelli. Years after, when he composes the second tetralogy and writes about Henry IV, Shakespeare alters his attitude and comes to realize that it is not enough for a king to be good and virtuous; he has to be wise, active, resolute, and treacherous, if necessary—to put it in another way: he has to be a Machiavellian prince.
To sum up, as he grows older, a powerful and efficient monarch rather than a virtuous and pious prince becomes what Shakespeare longs for. We can say that Shakespeare matures in public affairs. Therefore, we see a Shakespeare crossing the boundaries of idealism and realism.

Table of Contents

Chapter One Introduction 1

Chapter Two Machiavellianism and the Tudor Response 6

Chapter Three Richard III—the Stage Machiavelli 28

Chapter Four Henry IV—the Machiavellian King that Wins
Popular Support 49

Chapter Five Conclusion 71

Figure 1. 75

Works Cited 76

Works Cited
I. Primary Sources:
Shakespeare, William. The Arden Shakespeare: King Richard III. Ed. Antony Hammond. London: Methuen, 1987.
---. The Arden Shakespeare: King Richard II. Ed. Peter Ure. London: Methuen, 1987.
---. The Arden Shakespeare: King Henry IV, Part I. Ed. A. R. Humphreys. London: Methuen, 1985.
---. The Arden Shakespeare: King Henry IV, Part II. Ed. A. R. Humphreys. London: Methuen, 1980.

II. Secondary Sources:
Baines, Barbara J. “Kingship of The Silent King: A Study of Shakespeare’s Bolingbroke.” English Studies 61 (1980): 24-36.
Berry, Ralph. “Richard III: Bonding the Audience.” Mirror up to Shakespeare: Essays in Honour of G.R.Hibbard. Ed. J.C. Gray. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1984. 114-27.
Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. and Ed. P.G.Walsh. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.
Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. London: Methuen, 1974.
Elyot, Thomas. The Book Named the Governour. Ed. Henry Herbert and Stephen Croft. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, and Co., 1880.
Garber, Marjorie. “Descanting on Deformity: Richard III and the Shape of History.” The Historical Renaissance: New Essays on Tudor and Stuart Literature and Culture. Ed. Heather Dubrow and Richard Strier. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988. 79-103.
Hamilton, Donna B. “The State of Law in Richard II.” Shakespeare Quarterly 34:1 (1983): 5-17.
Hammond, Antony. Introduction. The Arden Shakespeare: King Richard III. By William Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1987. 1-119.
Hardin, Richard F. “The Literary Conventions of Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince: Advice and Aphorism.” Renaissance Quarterly 35:2 (1982): 151-63.
Hassel, R. Chris. Jr. Songs of Death. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1987.
---. “Military Oratory in Richard III.” Richard III. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publisher, 1988.
Hollingshead, Stephen B. Shakespeare’s Answer to Machiavelli: The Role of the Christian Prince in the History Plays. Diss. Marquette U, 1996. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1996. 9634267.
Horrox, Rosemary. Richard III: A Study of Service. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Hunt, Maurice. “Shakespeare’s King Richard III and the Problematics of Tudor Bastardy.” Papers on Language and Literature 33.2 (1997): 115-41.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957.
Keller, James R. Princes, Soldiers and Rogues: The Politic Malcontent of Renaissance Drama. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.
Knights, L. C. “Shakespeare’s Politics.” Henry V. Ed. Michael Quinn. London: Macmillan P, 1983. 228-37.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ed. Peter Bondanella. Trans. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998.
Marius, Richard. Thomas More: A Biography. New York: Distributed by Random House, 1984.
Neill, Michael. “ ‘In Everything Illegitimate’: Imaging the Bastard in Renaissance Drama.” The Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993): 270-92.
Raab, Felix. The English Face of Machiavelli: A Changing Interpretation 1500-1700. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965.
Rabkin, Norman. “Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V.” Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977): 279-96.
Randall, John Herman Jr.. The Making of the Modern Mind: A Survey of the Intellectual Background of the Present Age. New York: Columbia UP, 1976.
Richards, Jeffrey. “The Riddle of Richard III.” History Today 33 (1983): 18-25.
Rutter, Itala T.C. “The Fate of Machiavelli’s Virtu and Fortuna in Shakespeare and Marlowe.” Nemla Italian Studies. 11-12 (1987-88): 15-25.
Sigmund, Paul E., Trans. and Ed. St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics: a New Translation, Backgrounds, Interpretations. By Thomas Aquinas. New York: Norton, 1988.
Sir Stephen, Leslie and Sir Sidney Lee Eds. Dictionary of National Biography. 22 vols. London: Oxford UP, 1917.
Skinner, Quentin, et al. “Machiavelli.” Great Political Thinkers. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992. 11-97.
Spevack, Marvin. The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap P of Harvard UP, 1974.
Stirling, Brents. “Bolingbroke’s ‘Decision.’ ” Shakespeare Quarterly 2:1 (1951): 27-34.
Tillyard, E.M.W. Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Penguin, 1944.
Walter, J.H. “Shakespeare’s Christian Epic Hero.” William Shakespeare’s Henry V Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1988. 131-50.
Wells, Robin Healdam. “The Fortunes of Tillyard: Twentieth-Century Critical Debate on Shakespeare’s History Plays.” English Studies 5 (1985): 391-403.