17th Century - England and the Legitimacy of Inherited Power and Monarchy

17th c. England and the legitimacy of inherited power and monarchy

                        The three documents under study here all date from, or refer to, 17th century England and deal with the question of the origin of power and its of its legitimacy. This era was indeed marked by great political and social turmoils in England, for two main theories were confronting, since the 16th century on : the traditional theory of the divine rights of kings (according to which monarchs inherited their power from God, whom they were directly representing on earth), and the emerging idea of a contract between the ruler and the people (implying that the monarch's power would be granted to him by the people, that therefore the latter had duties towards them, and that they were equal). The history fof the 17th century itself was a good illustration of the very strong confrontation of these opposed conceptions of power, for it starts with James I's and Charles I's reigns who defended a strong monarchy, concentrated on the person of the king who was endowed with God's authority and did not necessarily need Parliament. But Charles's exercise of power was progressively perceived as arbitrary and absolute, which led to his beheading, in 1640, and to the English Civil War during the interregnum (1649-1660). After the very violent episode of the Civil War, a desire of return to peace and order was largely  felt in England, and expressed by both the peaceful Restoration, in 1660, which saw Charles II to the throne, who reestablished Anglicanism (as opposed to Charles I's Arminianism, close to Catholicism and therefore associated with absolutism) ; and the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which replaced James II (a Catholic) by William III without any bloodshed.

                         It is in this context of a 'Civil War of Ideas' that the debates over the legitimacy of the divine rights of king theory were taking place. All the sources of the corpus here support this theory and therefore aim at presenting this vision of power as part of the laws of nature, showing how chaotic and dangerous the world becomes when this right order of things is not respected. This is particularly clear in Shakespeare's King Lear where the themes of inherited power, legitimacy and justice are central, and we'll show how the issues Shakespeare addresses and the ideas he defends are also conveyed in the other sources of the corpus.  

                         Shakespeare's King Lear is an emblematic illustration of a world falling apart when the laws of nature are not followed. King Lear indeed bequeathed his kingdom, his power and all his possessions to his eldest daughters Gonril and Regan who had addressed to him a better compliment than their younger sister, Cordelia, who would not flatter artificially her father and was therefore disinherited. But Gonril and Regan made 'deadly use' of their father's generosity and turned out irrespecutful,  selfish and base ; to the point of causing their father's madness and death. In this passage, Gonril's husband, Albany, bursts out in violent wrath against his wife, expressing her all the disgust and hatred her vile actions inspire him, such as leaving her father out at night on a dreadfully stormy night, when even tigers and bears would have proved more sympathetic (l. 18-20). Gonril and Regan therefore made ill use of their power and their true – evil – nature was thus revealed throughout the play. What is striking in this passage, and in the play in general, is the violence of the dialogue and of the image, as for instance Albany wishes to “dislocate and tear [the] flesh and bones” of his wife (l.50). Gonril, who rebelled against the order of things is presented as inhuman, she is a fiend in a woman's shape as Albany fiercely insists on. She lost her humanity, that is here her femininity. As a woman she should, presumably, be a giver of life, ensuring peace and balance ; whereas she appears as thirsty for power, she shows no compassion or human pity and accuses very harshly her husband of cowardice for defending the good, she calls him “Milk-livered man” whereas she should be the feminine figure, possibly maternal and milk providing. But as Albany demonstrates, there is voidness and death in her thirst of power, as show l. 8 : nature despising its origins is never sure of its own identity and limits, then l. 11 : when that nature is cut from her nutritional sap, it dies and “comes to deadly use”, and l. 27 : “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, Like monsters on the deep”. So there is something monstrous about this unnatural rebellion, which leads to violent self-destruction, chaos, depravation and emptiness. As in Greek tragedies, the hubristic rebellion and disobedience to the established and natural order is paid by a death sentence which seals the return to nemesis, to stability and order.