Models of Kingship: Shakespeare's Depictions of the Relationship between the Sovereign and the Realm in Henry V and Macbeth

TLDR: The authors examined the relationship between the sovereign and the realm in each of the texts, in accordance with three prominent contemporary political theoretical models: the medieval concept of the king's two bodies, James' political philosophy and Machiavellianism.

Abstract: n the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries Britain experienced a period of uncertainty regarding the future of its sovereign. The ageing Queen Elizabeth I had not named an heir to the throne and the possibility that a Scot, James Stuart, would succeed was realised in 1603. This era also saw a marked development in contemporary political theory, as the writings of figures such as Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli and James himself began to displace medieval theoretical models. It was in this socio-historical context that William Shakespeare wrote Henry V and Macbeth. This essay will examine the depictions of the relationship between the sovereign and the realm in each of the texts, in accordance with three prominent contemporary political theoretical models: the medieval concept of the king’s two bodies, James’ political philosophy and Machiavellianism. In doing so, it will demonstrate that Shakespeare did not favour one mode of rule, but depicted a multi-faceted approach to sovereignty. The dominant paradigm of virtuous rule in medieval political philosophy was that of the king’s two bodies: the mystical and the natural. The natural body referred to the corporeality of the king – he was physically a man alike any other – but in his mystical body, the king was conceived of as the head and conscience of the realm, and served to demonstrate the ‘oneness of private and public, duty and interest’. 1 Shakespeare’s Henry V is well aware of this distinction, and the responsibility it implies. His ability to subject his private passions to his reason and reconcile his mystical and natural bodies is noted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, who describe Henry’s transformation from rowdy and unpromising youth to articulate and capable king, ‘full of grace and fair regard’ (1.1.23). Canterbury emphasises the abruptness of the evolution of the monarch, stating that: ‘The breath no sooner left his father’s body [...] Consideration like an angel came | And whipped th’offending Adam out of him’ (1.1.26-30). This observation implies that the accession itself compelled Henry to introspect on the aspects of his lifestyle and personality that were sinful, and shaped him as a virtuous king and ideal head of the body politic. Henry’s respect for his position, and appreciation of the responsibility it entails, is reinforced by his monologue in act four. He laments the accountability he has for the lives, souls, debts, families and sins of his subjects and asks ‘what have kings that privates have not too, | Save ceremony, save general ceremony?’ (4.1.219-27) Henry’s view of kingship implies a mutually dependent relationship between sovereign and realm – the people are reliant on their king to bear the burden of their problems, but Henry defines himself in relation to his role as head of the body politic, and without the pomp of ceremony he is just another man.