“SPECULUM SPECULORUM”: KINGSHIP AND SELFHOOD IN SHAKESPEARE’S “KING RICHARD II”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2021.2.08Keywords:
mirror, kingship, selfhood, crown, deposition, Richard IIAbstract
Speculum Speculorum: Kingship and Selfhood in Shakespeare’s King Richard II. Starting from the premise that the concept of the King’s Two Bodies generates the separation between two selves within the nature of a king, I argue that the medieval practice of the speculum principis – the mirror of the perfect prince – plays an important part in the process of fashioning the kingly stance. Given that, in the Christian tradition, the mirror stands on the polarized ground between resemblance to the divine and self-idolatry, the reflection of the self is always deceitful. Two Shakespearean plays will serve for the analysis of the link between mirrors and kings: Richard II and Richard III. In Richard II, Shakespeare creates a climactic scene in which, after having relinquished his crown to Bolingbroke, the newly deposed king demands a looking-glass to identify the remaining aspects of his former self. The article reads the reversal of the sanctified ceremonial coronation, the substitution of investiture by divestiture as a demonic rite of reciting Scripture passages backwards. This act activates the most dramatic effects, transforming Richard’s looking-glass into what Ernst Kantorowicz famously calls a “magic-mirror.” The ambivalence of the mirror is manipulated by Shakespeare in order to unveil Richard’s two-fold persona. The dissolution of kingship leaves behind a fragmented selfhood that can no longer ensure Richard’s survival, reducing him to nothing.
REZUMAT. Speculum Speculorum: Regalitate și personalitate în Richard al II-lea, de William Shakespeare. Pornind de la conceptul celor Două Corpuri ale Regelui, care generează separarea dintre cele două identități ale regalității, studiul de față urmărește practica medievală speculum principis – oglinda prințului perfect – și prezintă rolul pe care aceasta îl joacă în configurarea identității regale. În tradiția creștină oglinda e văzută, pe de o parte, ca obiect folosit pentru căutarea asemănării dintre om și divinitate și, pe de altă parte, ca obiect al idolatriei de sine. Reflexia sinelui în oglindă este una înșelătoare. Două texte shakespeariene vor servi ca analiză a relației dintre oglindă și regi: Richard al II-lea și Richard al III-lea. În Richard al II-lea, Shakespeare creează o scenă în care, după delegarea coroanei lui Bolingbroke, proaspătul rege depus cere o oglindă în care acesta urmărește identificarea aspectelor sinelui anterior. Inversul ceremoniei de încoronare – substituirea învestiturii cu depunerea – este interpretat ca ritualul demonic de citire inversă a unor fragmente din Scriptură. Această scenă declanșează efecte dramatice, transformând oglinda lui Richard în ceea ce Ernst Kantorowicz numește „oglinda magică.” Ambivalența oglinzii este utilizată de Shakespeare pentru dezvăluirea celor două identități ale lui Richard. Disoluția regalității are ca urmare un sine fragmentat, care nu îi mai asigură lui Richard supraviețuirea.
Cuvinte-cheie: oglindă, regalitate, sine, coroană, depunere, Richard al II-lea
References
Baines, Barbara J. “Kingship of the Silent King: A Study of Shakespeare’s Bolingbroke.” English Studies, vol. 61, no. 1, 1980, pp. 24-36.
Baluk-Ulewiczowa, Teresa. “The Mirror of Princes and the Distorting Mirror in Shakespeare’s Chronicle Plays.” Eyes to Wonder, Tongue to Praise. Volume in Honour of Professor Marta Gibińska, edited by A. Pokojka and A. Romanowska, 2012, pp. 24-42.
Bernault, Marie-Hélène, and Michel Bitot. “Historical legacy and fiction: poetical reinvention of King Richard III.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’s History Plays, edited by Michael Hattaway, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 106-25.
Bickley, Pamela, and Jenny Stevens. Essential Shakespeare: The Arden Guide to Text and Interpretation. Bloomsbury, 2013.
Carroll, William C. “Theories of Kingship in Shakespeare’s England.” A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works, Volume 11, The Histories, edited by Richard Dutton and Jean E. Howard, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 125-45.
Dickinson, John. “The Mediaeval Conception of Kingship and Some of Its Limitations as Developed in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury.” Speculum. A Journal of Mediaeval Studies, The Mediaeval Academy of America 1926, pp. 308–37.
Goddard, Harold C. The Meaning of Shakespeare, Volume 1. Phoenix Books, 1960.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Penguin, 1985.
Howard, Anita. The King Within: Reformation of Power in Shakespeare and Calderon. Peterlang, 1975.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton University Press, 2016.
Levin, Harry. “Sitting upon the Ground (Richard II, IV, i).” William Shakespeare: Histories, edited by Harold Bloom, Bloom’s Literary Criticism, 2009, pp. 103-22.
Melchoir-Bonnet, Sabine. The Mirror: A History. Routledge, 2014.
Schuler, Robert M. “Magic Mirrors in ‘Richard II.’” Comparative Drama, vol. 38, no. 2/3, 2004, pp. 151–181.
Shakespeare, William. Richard II. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
---, Richard II. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
The Holy Bible. Authorized by King James Version, Oxford University Press, 2010.
Vyroubalova, Ema and James Robert Wood. “Propping up the King’s Two Bodies.” Richard II”, Early English Studies, vol. 4, 2011, pp. 1-24.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.