Whose constructs are they?

"Subversive Rulers" in Shakespeare's Macbeth, Measure for Measure, Henry IV and Henry V:

by Mahendran THIRUVARANGAN

A scene from Macbeth

The question of "rulership" is a common thematic thread that runs through Shakespeare's 'Macbeth,' 'Measure for Measure' and the 'Henriad'. In all these plays, we see that the playwright's conceptualization of rulership is closely linked to Machiavelli's political theory, which underlines the abilities the early-modern ruler is expected to be in possession of.

According to Machiavelli, to retain political authority, the ruler should maintain his popularity among both the nobility and the public: "A prince should esteem the great, but must not make himself odious to the people." Machiavelli also puts forward the view that although it is not always necessary for the ruler to be "merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright," he should act in such ways that the citizens "would think him the embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion." One way in which the "ultimate rulers" - Malcolm, the Duke and Henry V-in the three Shakespearian plays preserve their fame in their states/dukedoms is by producing another ruler-whom I call the "subversive ruler" - who embodies the very antitheses of the values which they 'appear' to stand for. By "ultimate rulers" I mean the ones who come to power at the end of these plays, and thereby resolve the issues of rulership the playwright has posed at and from the outset of the plays. I do not like to use the term "ideal rulers" instead of "ultimate rulers" because the ideal ruler is discursively produced by the ultimate ruler with the view to inscribing in the minds of the subjects/citizens an imaginative self of the ultimate ruler representing all the "positive" and "admirable" qualities mentioned above.

The image of the ideal ruler, in turn, allows the ultimate ruler to frame the image of the subversive ruler antithetically in the political discourse, and to employ the subversive ruler as the negative, undesirable "Other" who needs to be contained by the ideal ruler. As Stephen Greenblatt notes, "an ideal image involves as its positive condition the constant production of its own radical subversion and the powerful containment of that subversion." Since the "ideal ruler" is only a discursive formation and finds its existence in the corporeality of the ultimate ruler, the one who contains subversion in effect is the not the ideal ruler but the ultimate ruler.

Macbeth resorts to subversive practices initially in order to come to power and subsequently to retain his political authority. However, the tyranny which engulfs Scotland during Macbeth's reign cannot simply be regarded as his own making, for Malcolm has his share of it too. We should read Malcolm's self-imposed exile soon after his father's murder at the hands of Macbeth not only as a self-protective measure but also as a strategic political manoeuvre to make Macbeth unpopular in Scotland, particularly among the aristocracy. Malcolm waits until Macbeth is abandoned by his trustworthy nobles to invade Scotland. Macduff's painful account of the happenings in Scotland brings to the fore that Macbeth is no longer admired in Scotland, and that his subversivity has become blasphemous:

Each new morn

A scene from Hemry IV

New widows howl, new orphans cry, new sorrows

Strike heaven on the face, that it resounds

As if it felt with Scotland and yelled out

Like syllable of dolour. (4.3. 5-9)

At one point in the conversation between Macduff and Malcolm, we see that Macduff is willing to accept Malcolm as Scotland's King despite Malcolm's claims that he is a worse leader than Macbeth. Ross, another Thane, informs Malcolm that Scotland has become a "grave" (4.3. 186) under Macbeth's leadership. Lennox describes that his country is suffering "under [the] accursed hand [of Macbeth]" (3.6. 52-53). Knowing that Macbeth will become unpopular in Scotland one day Malcolm waits until the dawn of that day.

Indirectly, by not starting a rebellion against Macbeth immediately (although he could have done so with the help of the English King), Malcolm allows Macbeth to violate the "norms" of rulership that a ruler is expected to comply with, and to become more subversive and more unpopular in Scotland. He defers his move to put an end to Macbeth's reign with the intention of allowing time and space for the emergence of a rebellion from within. Malcolm's act of "deference" produces Macbeth's subversion with greater force than ever before. Macbeth begins to rely on the second set of prophesies given by the witches and alienates himself completely from the nobility. Ultimately Macbeth cannot even *appear* as a "righteous ruler" in the eyes of his subjects and the nobility. Malcolm uses Macbeth's subversion as a political platform to project himself as an alternative leader who can offer Scotland a better future, and brings about Macbeth's fall eventually.

In 'Measure for Measure', the Duke wants to remain popular among the masses while "disciplining" them by containing their sexuality. What we see in this play is a divide between the public and the ruler's conceptions of "subversivity." While the public silently approves of prostitution the ruler feels that it needs to be held in check, if not eliminated completely, to retain his hegemony over his subjects. Being aware of this divergence the Duke strategically withdraws from the scene and leaves Angelo to face the challenge temporarily. When Angelo is all out to punish the "subversive citizens" of the dukedom, the public and the nobility identify him as a merciless ruler and show its inclination towards the flexible, pragmatic and "negotiatory" leadership provided by the Duke:

Lucio: Why, what a ruthless thing is this in him [Angelo], for the rebellion of codpiece to take away the life of a man. Would the duke that is absent have done this? Ere he would have hanged a man for the getting a hundred bastards, he would have paid for the nursing a thousand. He had some feeling of the sport, he knew the service, and that instructed him to mercy. (3.1.334-338)

We should bear in mind the fact that Angelo is capable to become the Duke of Vienna in the future. In fact, when the Duke asks Escalus, an ancient lord, whom he would recommend to look after the dukedom in his absence, Escalus' choice falls on Angelo:

If any in Vienna be of worth

To undergo such ample grace and honour,

It is Lord Angelo. (1.1. 22-24)

Against this political background, when the Duke appointed Angelo as the temporary ruler of his dukedom at a time of chaos when the ruler had to "discipline" the subjects at any cost, the Duke might have been driven with the surreptitious motive of making Angelo unpopular among the masses, and thereby eliminating the potential threat Angelo poses to his Dukeship. The Duke, as part of his Machiavellian strategy, gets Angelo to do the "dirty work" of eliminating brothels from the suburbs. Even though Angelo is given the task of bringing back order to a chaotic dukedom, the Duke knows that the public, instead of welcoming Angelo's efforts, would see him as trying to upset and subvert their hitherto unbridled sexual practices. For instance, the public considers Angelo's decision to sentence Claudio to death for impregnating Juliet, Claudio's fiancee, unnecessary and unacceptable, and disapproves of his rigorous administration. The Duke also awaits an opportunity to expose Angelo's own subversivity to the public in order to ruin his reputation. When Angelo's popularity is at the bottom end of the scale the manipulative Duke make Isabella and Mariana expose the "immoral" side of Angelo's character to the public. When Isabella, at the request of the Duke in disguise, reveals Angelo's advances to herself, Angelo's integrity as a ruler is questioned on moral grounds in public. As a result, Angelo is regarded by the public not only as a subversive ruler but also as a hypocritical leader. At the end of the play, when the Duke returns to his dukedom, his popularity among the citizens is on the rise, and Angelo cannot even think of replacing the Duke in the future. `Measure for Measure', in this regard, is a play in which we see "subversivity" at the service of the ultimate ruler. The Duke engages in a process of containing subversion not so much for the sake of his dukedom as for his own sake, for we do not hear any voices openly demanding the closing down of brothels in the play.

Both prostitution and Angelo's governance become subversive due to the manipulative actions the Duke resorts to for his own political survival in the future.

If Malcolm and the Duke strategically project their political rivals as subversive rulers, Prince Hal goes a step ahead of them and "fashions" his adolescence years as much subversive as possible in order to attract more eyes to witness his transformation into maturity when he is crowned as England's King:

My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,

Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes

Than that which hath no foil to set it off. (1.3. 150-152)

A scene from Macbeth

Hal's association with Falstaff at taverns makes him an "unconventional" prince. At the beginning of '1 Henry IV', King Henry compares Hal with his rival Northumberland's son Hotspur, and even wishes that Hotspur were his son as Hal does not act as a responsible prince. Although Hal does not become the "model prince" that his father expects to see in him, he carves a niche for himself as a future ruler independently through Machiavellian tactics, which are of course "subversive." Unlike Hotspur who is unable to use the best features of other men for his own political gains, Hal is manipulative to the core.

Hotspur's hot temper and passions become politically counterproductive. Unyoking himself from the medieval values of rulership which Hotspur seems to hold in high esteem, Hal drinks and sleeps at taverns and brothels, and becomes a representative figure of the newly emerging carnivalesque ruler of the Renaissance. In the early-modern period, where governance has to dovetail with the values of the post-feudal political climate, a ruler has to be in touch with people belonging to different social classes.

Hal's association with prostitutes and thieves at the beginning of '1 Henry IV' is significant in this respect. Leonard Tennenhouse rightly observes that Hal's "low-life activities" indicate that "he takes on a populist energy" as opposed to "legitimate authority." Stephen Greenblatt sees Hal's "mastery of tavern slang" as signifying "the human fellowship of the extremist top and bottom of society in a homely ritual act of drinking together." Even though Hal may be seen as subverting the social order owing to his association with the "low-life," once he becomes the King of England, he starts off to reinstate the social hierarchy. For instance, in '2 Henry IV', when Falstaff comes to meet Hal, who is now Henry V, he heartlessly calls Falstaff a "vain man" (5.5. 38), and pretends that he does not know him: "I know thee not, old man" (5.5.

41). Later on, in 'Henry V', Hostess Quickly informs us that the King has killed Falstaff. In a similar move, Doll Tearsheet, a prostitute, is arrested for a murder for which she does not seem to be responsible after Hal assumed power in '2 Henry IV'. In the 'Henriad', then, Hal produces and encourages subversion not only to emerge as a ruler who represents people belonging to different social strata but also to contain that very subversion later as a hegemonic ruler.

Textually, we see that the subversive rulers in these plays are produced by the ultimate rulers to affirm or re-affirm the continuation of hereditary rulership. Macbeth poses a threat to the continuance of Duncan's lineage in Scotland's political arena.

However, the challenge Macbeth posed to hereditary rulership is contained by Malcolm, one of the two sons of Duncan, who becomes Scotland's next king at the end of the play. In the 'Henriad', Hal attempts to create a subversive ruler in himself with the intention of making hereditary rulership 'appear' as representing all walks of life until it is safely re-instituted.

In 'Measure for Measure', if we assume that Isabella accepts the Duke's proposal and gives birth to a child, we might say that in the chaos emerging in Angelo's rule, not only has the Duke found a way to strengthen his political existence but he has also ensured the continuance of his family line in the chambers of power in Vienna.

We see the subversive rulers in these plays, then, as political constructs, wrought by both hegemonic rulers in power and aspirant rulers to suit their political interests which are grounded in the assumptions of hereditary rulership.