“Conflict, Character, and Succession: Politics in the Royal Tragedies of
Shakespeare”
Jeremy Lewis and Charles Walters, Huntingdon College
jlewis@huntingdon.edu
A paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Alabama Political Science Association,
Tuscaloosa, AL, 29 April 2006. The thematic, introductory essay was drafted by Lewis,
Professor of Political Science, and the case studies of plots in the plays by Walters, an
undergraduate in political science and creative writing.
Abstract
This project comprises an essay on western forms of justice, an analysis of justice
themes in selected plays, followed by an analysis of plot devices. The subject is themes
of justice in those of Shakespeare’s plays having more political content, particularly the
royal tragedies.
Paper
Introduction to the Project
This paper has grown from a liberal arts symposium which, in spring semesters
from 1996 to 2004 engaged much of the faculty and student body of the college in
contemplating concepts of justice across centuries and cultures, and resulted in a series of
custom anthologies of readings. Among the events in the symposia were annual lectures
by Dr. Kenneth Deal (to whom this essay is indebted) and faculty discussions of justice
themes in those of Shakespeare’s plays that were being performed at the Alabama
Shakespeare Festival theatre. This essay will not discuss the bard’s plays through the
lens of English literature, for some six thousand articles are written per year in that mode,
and the authors do not wish to be presumptuous. Instead, we shall filter some of the
many ideas and texts discussed in that symposium through the membrane of political
science and political theory.
Themes of Justice in Shakespeare’s Plays
The plays evoke notions of morality from ancient Greece (Aristotle’s
proportionality), ancient Rome (a balance of social classes represented in government),
mediaeval times (justice requiring hospitality to guests) and the Tudor renaissance
(regicide is bound to be punished). Rulers may not be resisted, unless they behave
unjustly, and then plotters meet unpleasant ends. While humans have some creative
latitude, Gods guide some denouements towards justice. While Shakespeare filters all
moral action through the drama of individual human characters, and distorts political
history freely for dramatic purposes, his plays were written and performed within the
acceptable zone of Tudor royal politics.
Influences upon Shakespeare’s Concepts of Justice.
 Aristotle’s Proportional Justice
Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, Book V, lays out a novel set of theories of justice
which can be typified by mathematical analogy. First, proportional distribution by
geometric analogy, in which A:C::B:D – which we recognize today as a merit principle.
Secondly, corrective justice by arithmetical analogy, in which A+C=B-C – which wse
recognize as correcting an injustice. Thirdly, reciprocal justice based on equality of loss,
B-C:A-C, which we recognize as the biblical eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Aristotle
leaves us in little doubt, though, that this is for use where proportional justice is not
feasible. For example, an offender who slaughtered two sheep not his property, lacks two
sheep to lose in return.
Aristotle, of course, holds to the paramount ancient Greek value of virtue, in
which the nature of rule reveals the man in the ruler. Justice is necessary to all
Aristotelian virtues, but justice is relative in the sense that some natural laws (for
example, self-defense) must be acknowledged in social laws constructed by the polis.
Penal justice, or exemplary justice, is not a part of Aristotle’s ethics. In contrast,
Tudor and renaissance rulers were accustomed to meting out exemplary disproportionate
justice. For instance, James I executed a pickpocket publicly, then gave amnesty to the
others. Rulers, in other words, were applying justice in the form that Plato’s Republic
had rebelled against, in which justice consists in those of lowly station obeying their
rulers. Plato’s Thrasymachus dialogue takes the analogy of a doctor’s professional care
for a patient, to argue radically, that justice comprises the ruler acting in the interest of
the ruled:
“Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in so far as he is a ruler,
considers or enjoins what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his
subject or suitable to his art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything
which he says and does.”
For the Greeks, of course, justice is essentially something human that does not apply
to the Gods. Renaissance justice is complicated by theological issues arising from
Augustine’s City of God, in which humans are all sinners deserving punishment but
escaping because of God’s grace. There are differences, of course, as to whether God has
predetermined human fates.
The renaissance is also complicated by the notion of probability, notably in
Machiavelli’s note to the prince that even when all his advice is taken, fortune intervenes.
The just will suffer along with the unjust.
New laws develop in the renaissance, along with new, secular regimes. New law
replaces the old Mosaic law (stoning to death for numerous offenses) with the possibility
of mercy, on occasion, when human character deserves. This leads to J.W. Lever’s
humanist problem of coordinating the spiritual and natural forces for the welfare of man.
The judge, duke or governor is God’s representative on earth, having the power of life or
death. Nonetheless, Shakespeare contrives to punish retributively any arbitrary exercise
of power that lacks a show of remorse.
 Machiavelli’s Advice to the Prince
Shakespeare reacts frequently to the Machiavellian moment (Pocock), in common
with the church and many renaissance authors who decried his analysis of secular rulers,
and his emphasis on securing appearances rather than the reality of service to subjects.
Shakespeare’s Duke in the transitional play Measure for Measure, by this standard,
would actually be too lenient a ruler, leaving Angelo to tighten up the laws and be hated.
The precise Angelo is puritanical and may symbolize Shakespeare’s distaste for the
puritans, who were trying to close theatres in the bawdy districts of the south bank.
(Deal, 1997).
Shakespeare understands Machiavelli’s advice, based on common argument, even
though there is no evidence he read The Prince even in English translation. In Richard
III, he poses the central question of how justice can prevail against a charming, amoral
liar. In his worldview, people are stupid to the point of bestiality; he can confront moral
conventions and succeed; and he may do anything to achieve power. This is all
consistent with the critical, Tudor reading of Machiavelli, heavily based on his advice to
the Prince rather than the republican Discourses on Livy.
 Tudor Concepts of Justice
Given the Tudor punishments for writing plays that challenged the Tudor myth of
rule by divine right (which included amputation of the hand), Shakespeare wisely
supports the view of the winners of the war of the roses. Richard III’s deformity
embodies anarchy and disorder, akin to injustice, and he is Shakespeare’s first man to
behave malevolently even to his brother, predating Macbeth, the good man undone by
ambition and his wife. Richard is a ‘machivell’, a satanic character who murders men
and sees women as fickle when (like Elizabeth) they oppose him.
The Tudor view of morality counterposed absolute good and evil. Humans may
choose evil, but divine plans (although inscrutable) lead to just punishments. Since
providence is working to ensure God’s plan survives the initial death of the divine king,
Richard III is the scourge of God on the nation for terrible sins. Lear, a pathetic rather
than an evil ruler, is guilty of imprudent, early distribution of his power and kingdom.
He listens to idle flattery from his daughters at the expense of his kingdom. Although
this to modern ears is a milder sin, for Dante the idle flatterers were consigned to a low
circle of the inferno. Nonetheless, Shakespeare is replete with examples of humans who
bring upon themselves their own punishment: evil itself is punishment. Richard,
Macbeth, Lear, and the Caesarian plotters all deteriorate into isolation, indecision, and
violent death.

Setting of the Royal Tragedies:
 Classical, Mediaeval, Tudor, Renaissance, Rivalry with France.
Shakespeare loosely sets his plays in historical settings with compressed time frames.
In the classical setting, justice may consist of a balanced constitution among patricians
and plebians; in the mediaeval, obedience to the divine ruler, heeding spiritual omens,
and ruling both firmly and justly. The house of Tudor is just versus its enemies, and
England must triumph over France before showing magnanimity. Rulers who act weakly
or imprudently will suffer, if not so harshly as those who act with evil hearts.
Commonalities are evident across the settings: justice in three plays is left in the
hands of a benevolent and wise character: Portia in The Merchant of Venice, the Duke in
Measure for Measure, and Prospero in The Tempest. All three exercise both mercy and
forgiveness. The setting of the Tempest is curious, since although ostensibly in the
Mediterranean, it is the first, following Montaigne’s enlightenment essay “Of the
Cannibals,” to locate the relation of savages to Europeans, seemingly in the West Indies.
Justice in The Plays, analyzed by Charles Walters:
 Richard III (1597)
Richard III displays justice through the Richard’s desire for succession and by
his ruthless character. In Act I, Richard makes his intentions known that he is willing to
kill anyone who gets between him and the power of the throne. He is so intent on
eliminating opposition that he “sidesteps ethics” and all sense of justice (Maguire 90).
Richard III unjustly kills innocent lives including the dead Edward’s young sons and all
those that are loyal to the true heirs of the throne. Richard alienates most all of the nobles
by his merciless killings and a challenger, Richmond rises against Richard’s kingship.
Richard is plagued the night before his death by the unjust deeds he has committed.
Richmond takes the throne dispersing Richard who by his power and lust for glory called
justice on his own head wrecking himself (Knight 7).
 Henry V (1599)
In Henry V the theme of justice is shown through character, conflict, and empire.
Is a king held to the same justice as that of an ordinary man? “There is a tenuous balance
between the monarch’s ruthlessness (a kind of “justice,”) and “mercy” (Hall 88). Henry is
presented with several trying situations. He has to weigh the option of going to war
knowing that many innocent people will be killed, but since honor is at stake and war and
kingship are related to honor he feels the war is justified (Knight 3).
Henry also goes through the trial of having to put former friends to death, because
of treachery in Scroop’s case and thievery in Bardolph and Nym’s case. Henry however,
can not afford to be sentimental as a military leader and reveals not regret over his former
friends’ deaths (Hall 88). Any commoner would have been condemned personally (if not
openly) for refusing to show mercy on a former friend. Even Henry’s character seems to
be saddened by the fact that he is a king and isolated from everyone else. The fact that
kingly justice is greater than common justice, Henry himself alludes to when he dresses
up as an ordinary soldier. He tells Williams (a commoner who believes he is just talking
to another soldier) that he believes the king is as ordinary a man as himself only with
greater responsibilities (IV.i). Having greater responsibilities allows Henry to cast aside
the justice that is applied to ordinary citizens and is held to a different standard.
 Julius Caesar (1599)
The plebeians in Julius Caesar portray justice. Caesar has been killed by Cassius
out of greed and by Brutus because he believed Caesar was ambitious and a threat to
Rome. Does this justify the killing of Caesar? Brutus’s conscience tells us no, it doesn’t,
when he proclaims—
“Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar, I have not slept. /
Between the acting of a dreadful thing / And the first motion, all the
interim is / Like a phantasma or a hideous dream” (II.i.61-65).
Brutus himself feels that Caesar has been done a great wrong even though he believes he
acted rightly for Rome. Before his death Caesar himself marks, “Know Caesar doth not
wrong, nor without cause / Will he be satisfied” (III.i.47-48). This statement alludes that
has the best intentions for the common people of the Roman state.
After Caesar’s murder Antony stirs the people to desire revenge for Caesar’s
blood. Allan Bloom says, that Caesar’s “spirit ruled Rome, conveyed the sole title to
legitimacy, and punished all offenders against it (Bloom 75). This does seem so
especially after Antony’s speech. Antony claims, “O judgment! thou art fled to brutish
beasts, / And men have lost their reason” (III.ii.109-110). He says this to incite the crowd
to riot and they do knowing that Caesar was “their natural master, and it is only after his
death” and Antony’s prodding “that they seek to function out of their degree and do
violence to the state by taking justice into their own hands” (Phillips 176).
 Hamlet (1600-1)
Hamlet exemplifies the theme of justice through revenge, and Claudius is dealt
justice due to his greed and ambition. Hamlet first becomes aware of his father’s murder
when the apparition speaks to him (I.v). Hamlet is by characterization a good man; he
had to have some moral explanation in order to carry through murder even for the sake of
revenge. The answer to this is explained, “Shakespeare and his contemporaries looked
upon revenge as a legitimate alternative to punishment meted out by the law, particularly
if the offended party could not expect to bring his adversary to justice by due process”
(Boklund 118). This precisely applies to Hamlet.
As Hamlet tries to get his revenge on Claudius he passes judgment on Polonius,
whom he accidentally kills, by saying thou wretched, rash intruding fool (III.iv.31)—
putting the fault on Polonius. Hamlet also does not feel by the death of Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern for ‘they did make love to this employment’ (5.2.58) (Alexander 40). These
feelings express that Hamlet, in his mind, becomes the law that is to punish adversary.
The reason it takes Hamlet so long to get his revenge on Claudius is because:
Claudius lives up to the kingly ideal through the greater part of the play but, descends to
treachery in the end to save him-self (Knight 16). This can explain the reason’s for
Hamlet’s slow contemplation before killing Claudius. Hamlet is unable to kill Claudius
while he is “living up to the kingly ideal” until, Claudius commits his first act of
treachery (trying to kill Hamlet via letter to the King of England IV.iii). Hamlet gets his
revenge on the death of his father, but he also perishes justly because of his viciousness
in killing Claudius, “Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane, / Drink off this
potion. Is they union here? Follow my mother.” (V.ii.336-337).
 King Lear (1605-6)
Justice in King Lear is seen through both character and succession. Under
succession, King Lear decides to divide his kingdom among his three daughters, he
proclaims that “his “constant will” (I.i.43), presents himself as a prudent and temperate
judge about to decide a question of distributive justice” (Lee 101). When in reality he
decides to distribute the kingdom based on the merit the daughters aspire to have by
telling him how much they love them. Lear listened to his older daughters make their
claims, but when he refused to Cordelia it “was a blow to his own justice as king (Bloom
145). By denying Cordelia her due justice and by giving Goneril and Regan the kingdom
unjustly, Lear’s power is undermined and eventually taken.
Lear and Cordelia both do what they feel is right, and Lear immediately regrets
his decision of disowning Cordelia. However, there characters are flawed because they
both side with the French against England which lead to their “just” deaths. “The deaths
of Lear and Cordelia were not matters of mere dramatic fitness. They were required as
retribution for the transgressions against justice that both had committed. Both had sided
with France against Britain” (Bloom 145).
 Macbeth (1606)
In Macbeth, justice takes form through Macduff’s revenge. Macbeth unjustly
seizes the throne of Scotland by murdering Duncan. Not only has Macbeth morally acted
wrong but he has also defied the kingdom to which he aspires. His kingship is then
plagued by fear and hideous murders most notably the murder of Macduff’s wife and
children (IV.ii). Macduff vows revenge,
“Cut short all intermission; front to front / Bring thou this fiend of
Scotland and myself; / Within my sword’s length set him; if he’ scape, /
Heaven forgive him too!” (IV.iii232-235)
Macbeth’s rule drags the kinship to hell (Knight 8). Macbeth loses the
support of the nobles and is justly killed in battle by Macduff.
 Coriolanus (1608)
Justice is expressed in Coriolanus through revenge, conflict, and empire. The
plebeians demand that they be given the right to set grain prices (I.i). The state has a
serious question to answer here; do they give the proletariat what they want by
succumbing to their demands? Instead of giving them exactly what they want, they
decide to give them five representatives in the government (I.i.). By doing creating these
representatives (tribunes) “the city has won new defenders for itself from the ranks of its
bitterest enemies” (Cantor 62). Justice is given the plebeians despite Coriolanus’s hatred
for the common people. After the people turn their vote against Coriolanus, he speaks out
intemperately against the masses (III.i). “Coriolanus ever deludes himself that he, a single
individual, constitutes Rome’s best and only self” (Alexander 73). The plebeians also
have their faults too. “It is true that, when cunningly prompted to do so by the tribunes in
act 3, the plebeians claim that they alone embody Rome; ‘the people’, they shout, ‘are the
city’ (3.1.198) (Alexander 72). This conflict results in Coriolanus being justly denied the
title of consul—he would have inevitably taken all power the plebeians had gained.
Coriolanus is proclaimed a traitor and is banished from Rome. “There’s no more to be
said, but he is banish’d, / As an enemy to the people and his country” (IV.i.116-117).
Coriolanus wants revenge—what he believes to be justice on Rome. In order to
obtain this justice he travels to his enemy Aufidius and says, “in mere spite, / To be full
quit of those my banishers, / Stand I before thee here” (IV.v.87-89). The revenge that
Coriolanus wants is a full revenge; he wishes to take Rome because of his banishment.
His thirst for revenge is transformed by Volumnia his mother tells him, “while the
Volsces / May say ‘This mercy we have show’d;’ the Romans, / ‘This we received;’ and
each in either side / Give the all-hail to thee” (V.iii.135-138). Coriolanus thus feels that if
the Romans realize that he has spared them and hail him as a hero—he then has had his
revenge against Rome.
Justice in the Context of the Plots, analyzed by Charles Walters:
 Richard III (1597)
The families of York and Lancaster finally ended their civil war allowing England
to have a period of peace under the York’s and Edward IV’s rule. Richard, Edward’s
younger brother, desires Edward’s power and decides to take the throne—killing anyone
who gets in his way (I.i). His first manipulates Lady Anne into marrying him although he
murdered her husband and had her older brother executed blaming it on Edward trying to
accelerate his illness and death.
When Edward dies Richard becomes the lord protectorate of England until
Edward’s sons become old enough to take the throne. Richard kills those loyal to the
princes including the lord chamberlain, Lord Hastings. He also kills Queen Elizabeth’s
relatives who have any power. Lord Buckingham and Richard’s allies campaign to have
him crowned king and sends murderers to kill the young princes in which he already had
locked in the Tower.
Most all of the noblemen have been alienated by Richard at this time including
Lord Buckingham, and all of England fears and loathes him. A challenger, the earl of
Richmond a descendent of the Lancaster family, gathers forces in France and the
noblemen hurry to join his side. Richard tries to garner what power he has left by killing
his wife, Queen Anne and marrying the daughter of the dead King Edward, his niece
which would secure his place on the throne. Queen Elizabeth stalls him, promising to
marry her daughter Elizabeth to Richmond rather than Richard. The night before the
battle between Richmond and Richard, Richard has a dream where all the ghosts of those
has killed tell him that he will die on the next day in which is exactly what happens
(V.iii). Richmond is then crowned Henry VII and married to young Elizabeth, which
unites the warring houses of York and Lancaster.
 Henry V (1599)
Henry V assumes the throne from his father in a state of dissatisfaction after
England has passed through several bitter civil wars. Henry also has the tedious duty to
gain the respect of the English and especially the court from which was tarnished from
hanging out with thieves and drunkards while he was younger.
Henry decides to claim parts of France that through his distant family and through
interpretations of old laws concerning the ownership of land. The Dauphin of France
sends Henry an insulting message saying that he will not give up his land, provoking
Henry to war with the support of the nobility. Before Henry’s fleet sets sail for France, a
plot to murder Henry is uncovered. The traitors who were working for the French beg for
mercy, one of the three is Henry’s former friend Scroop. Henry goes through with their
execution. Henry knows that he must not show weakness despite his personal feelings he
illustrates this when he tells his soldiers while at Harfleur,
“Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it.” (III.i. 8-11).
As the army wins battle after battle and as they advance, Nym and Bardolph, two
more of Henry’s former friends are caught looting. Henry orders their execution. Henry
appears to have no grief until just before the climax battle, the Battle of Agincourt. The
British are outnumbered five to one by the French. Henry dresses up as a common soldier
and talks to many of his soldiers finding out who they are and how they were swept up
into this coming great battle.
When Henry is alone after his talk he expresses his grief over the duties which he
has to perform as king. “What infinite heart's-ease / Must kings neglect, that private men
enjoy!” (IV.i. 235-236)
The next morning Henry prays to God and delivers an inspiring speech which
leads the English on to a miraculous victory. The French surrender and peace is
established. Henry then marries the daughter of the French king to further the peace.
 Julius Caesar (1599)
Cassius and Brutus, long time friends of Caesar, relate to each other their fears
that the people of Rome want Julius Caesar to become their king after his triumph return
from battle. Cassius believes that his and Brutus’ lack of will is what allows Caesar to
have gained so much power (I.ii).
During the celebration for the triumphant return, Caesar falls down to the ground
and had a seizure displaying weakness to the crowd yet, they don’t lose devotion to him.
Brutus then goes home and contemplates what Cassius has said about Caesar’s poor
qualifications to rule, while Cassius was devising a way to have Brutus drawn into the
conspiracy against Caesar. Cassius forges letters to make Brutus believe that it is the
people’s will that Caesar be removed from power. Brutus reads the letters and as a strong
supporter of the republic believes the letters saying that Caesar has become too powerful.
Cassius wants to lure Caesar away from his house and kill him and kill Antony also, but
Brutus says that too much blood will make the deed dishonorable. Portia, Brutus’ wife,
realizes that Brutus is preoccupied with something but does not know what; she pleads
with him to confide with her but he refuses.
Calpurnia, Caesar’s wife, begs him to stay home for the day and he finally relents,
only to change his mind when Decius, one of the conspirators, convinces that Calpurnia’s
dreams of blood have been misinterpreted. On Caesar’s way to the Senate a soothsayer
tries to tell him of his impending doom and Artemidorus even hands him a letter telling
of the conspiracy but he refuses to read it saying personal concerns are his last priority.
At the Senate the conspirators surround Caesar and stab him one by one; when he sees his
friend Brutus among the murders, he gives up and dies.
Antony returns after being led away by the conspirators, and shakes hands with
the conspirators while pledging allegiance to Brutus, appearing to reconcile. “Let each
man render me with his bloody hand” (III.i.185). Brutus tells Antony that he will explain
why Caesar was killed at a funeral oration. Antony asks if he can also speak at the funeral
and Brutus agrees. After the conspirators leave, Antony swears he will avenge Caesar’s
death.
Brutus speaks before the crowd telling them that, though he loved Caesar, he
loved Rome more and Caesar’s ambition was a threat to Roman liberty. Antony then is
allowed to speak and he turns the crowd against the conspirators by telling them that
Caesar three times rejected taking the crown that was offered him, and by also reading to
the plebeians Caesar’s will. Caesar’s will bequeaths his gardens to the people as parks,
and to every citizen of Rome a sum of money. The masses become enraged and set about
to drive the traitors, Cassius and Brutus, from the city. They claim “Revenge! About!
Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay! Let not a traitor live! (III.ii.208-209) Meanwhile Octavius,
Caesar’s adopted son and appointed successor, creates a coalition with Antony and
Lepidus.
Brutus and Cassius, camped outside the city, decide to raise an army after an
argument over their honor and money problems. Brutus tells Cassius that he is sick with
grief because Portia killed herself over his absence and even more grief awaits him when
Caesar’s ghost appears to him saying they will meet on the battlefield.
The next day on the field of battle the opposing generals exchange insults and
then begin fighting. Over some mixed communication, Cassius believes his good friend,
Titinius, has been captured in battle, and orders one of his men to kill him. Titinius who
was not captured, sees Cassius’s body and kills himself. When Brutus learns of Titinius
and Cassius’s deaths, he prepares to take on the Romans again, but his army becomes
swamped and he too kills himself. Antony calls him the noblest Roman of all, because
the other conspirators acted out of envy and ambition, while Brutus believed he acted out
of the genuine benefit of Rome (V.v).
 Hamlet (1600-1)
The dead king, Hamlet, appears to some watchmen and then to the scholar and
friend of Hamlet, Horatio. Horatio then brings Hamlet to see the dead king’s apparition.
The spirit speaks to Hamlet telling him that he is indeed his father’s spirit and that he was
killed by Claudius (I.v). Hamlet vows himself to avenging his father’s death. He seems to
go mad and his behavior becomes very erratic while he delays contemplating on the deed
he intends to accomplish. Claudius and his wife Gertrude worry about Hamlet’s behavior
and Polonius (the pompous lord chamberlain) suggests that he is in love with Polonius’s
daughter, Ophelia.
Hamlet decides to prove his uncle’s guilt, by using a band of actors to perform the
scene that he believes is close to how his father was killed by Claudius. Claudius leaps up
during the play when the murder is about to take place. Horatio and Hamlet believe this
proves his guilt, and go to kill Claudius only to find him praying. “”But, O, what form of
prayer / Can serve my turn? ‘Forgive me my foul murder?” (III.iii.51-52) Hamlet
believes that if they kill Claudius while he is praying, his soul will go to Heaven -- and
they do not believe that justice will be served unless his soul goes to hell. “A villain kills
my father; and for that, / I, his sole son, do this same villain send / to heaven. / O, this is
hire and salary, not revenge” (III.iii.76-79). For this, Claudius becomes afraid for his own
safety and orders Hamlet to be sent to England.
When Hamlet goes to confront his mother in her bedroom, he accidentally kills
Polonius (who is hiding behind some curtains) believing he is the king. For this murder,
Hamlet is banished to England immediately with two of the king’s men whom Hamlet
considers friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are given
sealed orders to give the King of England, demanding that Hamlet be put to death.
Upon the death of Polonius, Ophelia grieves heavily and drowns in the river.
Claudius convinces Polonius’s son, Laertes, that Hamlet is guilty of the death of his
father and of his sister. Hamlet’s ship is attacked by pirates on his way to England, so he
is forced to come back to Denmark. Claudius manages to get Laertes and Hamlet to fence
in a harmless sport. Claudius has however, poisoned both Laertes’s blade and a goblet to
make sure that Hamlet dies if Laertes sword can just break Hamlet’s skin. Hamlet wins
the game without being cut by Laertes. Hamlet refuses to drink from the goblet that the
king has offered, but Queen Gertrude drinks the wine instead and quickly dies. Laertes
and Hamlet then duel and both Hamlet and Laertes are poisoned by Laertes sword.
Laertes confesses before he dies, that the king poisoned the goblet and is responsible for
Gertrude’s death. Hamlet then runs Claudius through with the poisoned blade and forces
him to drink the rest of the poisoned wine. Laertes remarks on the king’s death right
before he himself dies, “He is justly served; / It is a poison temper’d by himself”
V.ii.338-339). As soon as Hamlet completes his revenge he dies from being cut with the
poisonous blade. Fortinbras, a Norwegian prince, takes control of the throne, and after
Horatio tells the story, Hamlet’s body is ordered to be carried off as though a fallen
soldier’s.
 King Lear (1605-6)
King Lear as an old man decides to divide his Kingdom among his three
daughters. He decides to make them go through a test which he believes will prove how
much each one loves him. The king asks each daughter how much they love him. Goneril
and Regan, the older daughters give flattering answers while the youngest says that she
cannot put into words how much she loves her father the king, “Then poor Cordelia! /
And yet not so; since, I am sure, my love’s / More richer than my tongue (I.i.78-80). Lear
is angered that Cordelia remains silent disowns her and she leaves to go to France. Soon
after Lear realizes the mistake he made while Goneril and Regan try to undermine his
authority. “How ugly didst thou in Cordelia show! / That, like an engine, wrench’d my
frame of nature / From the fix’d place; drew from my hear all love” (I.iv.289-291). Lear
finally goes insane—unbelieving of the fact that his daughters are betraying him. He
flees, and wanders about on a heath with Kent and his Fool.
During this time, a nobleman, Gloucester, is tricked by his illegitimate son,
Edmund, that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Edgar disguises himself and
hides out on the heath calling himself “Poor Tom.”
Gloucester is blinded by Regan and her husband Cornwall, when they find out he
knows of their plot tries to help Lear. They let him go wandering while “Poor Tom” who
is really his son leads him to the city of Dover, where Lear is found. Cordelia brings a
French army from France in an effort to save Lear, but the English, led by Edmund,
defeat the French. Lear and Cordelia are then captured. In the end Edgar duels and kills
Edmund (V.iii). Gloucester dies. Goneril poisons Regan out of jealousy over Edmund
and then kills herself when her husband Albany (who has been sympathetic to Lear)
finds out of her treachery. Cordelia needlessly dies in prison because of Edmund’s
betrayal, which causes Lear to die of grief. Albany, Edgar, and the nobleman Kent take
control of the country.
 Macbeth (1606)
Macbeth and Banquo conquer two invading armies. As they are returning home
from the battle they encounter three witches. These witches prophesy that Macbeth will
be made thane of Cawdor and, eventually, king, and that Banquo will be father to many
kings, though not king himself. The men are skeptical of the prophecy, although as they
continue home some of King Duncan’s men come to congratulate them and tell Macbeth
he has indeed been named thane of Cawdor. Macbeth is intrigued, and after visiting
Duncan, writes his wife of all that has happened. Lady Macbeth wishes Macbeth to be
king and prods him to murder Duncan in order to obtain it, “O, never shall that morrow
see!” (I.v.62)
Macbeth has a vision of a bloody dagger, nonetheless, despite his vision and his
doubts he continues to go through with the murder. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth blame
the chamberlains for the murder. The next morning Macbeth kills them, acting as though
it is out of a fit of rage for their murder of Duncan. Macbeth assumes the kingship and
Duncan’s sons Malcolm and Donalbain flee Scotland. Macbeth fears that the witches’
prophecy that Banquo’s heirs will assume the throne will come true. So, Macbeth
summons assassins, “I’ll call upon you straight: abide within. / It is concluded. Banquo,
thy soul’s flight, / If it find heaven, must find it out to-night” (III.ii.139-142). The
assassins manage to kill Banquo, but Fleance escapes.
That night at a feast Macbeth sees Banquo’s ghost, and raves, startling his guests.
Macbeth, fearful for his kingship goes to see the witches (IV.i). They tell him to beware
Macduff (a noble that opposed his ascension to the throne), that he cannot be harmed by
any man born of woman, and that he will be safe until Birnam Wood comes to
Dunsinane. Macbeth learns of Macduff’s fleeing to England to join Malcolm and orders
that his castle be captured and that Lady Macduff and her children be killed (IV.ii).
Macduff learns of his family’s execution and vows revenge. The Scottish nobles join
Malcolm and Macduff, fearful of Macbeth’s tyrannical reign. Lady Macbeth walks
around restlessly and perceives blood on her hands that will not wash off eventually
murdering herself. Macbeth sinks into a deep despair but still prepares for battle at
Dunsinane. The English army advances on Dunsinane with boughs cut from Birnam
forest and gradually overwhelms Macbeth’s soldiers. Macduff heads straight to fight
Macbeth in order to get his revenge, “My voice is in my sword: thou bloodier villain /
Than terms can give out! (V.viii.6-7) During the fighting Macduff tells Macbeth that he
was not born of woman but “untimely ripped.” Macbeth, knowing that he is doomed,
continues to fight until Macduff beheads him. Malcolm then becomes the new king of
Scotland.
 Coriolanus (1608)
After a severe famine, plebeians in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus demand that they be
able to regulate their own prices on grain. The patricians (who are in leadership at the
time) decide, in order to subdue their protests, to give them five representatives. Caius
Martius, a patrician becomes enraged and remarks when Menenius Agrippa asks, “What
is granted them?” “Five tribunes to defend their vulgar wisdoms” (Act I scene I lines
219-220).
At this same time Caius Martius receives word that the Volscians are in arms. He
takes this time as a time to go and vent over the plebeians being given representation. The
Romans are led to victory by Martius’ heroic efforts and he is given the honorary name
Coriolanus. On his return to Rome the Senate offers to make him the consul, and in order
to gain this election he must go out and campaign for votes, among the plebeians whom
he detests. He reluctantly goes and pleads with the citizens and they agree to vote for
Coriolanus for consul. They change their mind however, when Sicinius and Brutus advise
them to not vote for Coriolanus. Brutus tells the First Citizen:
“They have chosen a consul that will from them take Their
liberties; make them of no more voice Than dogs that are as
often beat for barking As therefore kept to do so”
(II.iii.221-225)
The plebeians decide to not vote for Coriolanus. Coriolanus, who already did not
agree with common people having positions of power, becomes enraged once more and
he speaks openly against popular rule. This is perfect ammunition for Sicinius and Brutus
who then declare Coriolanus a traitor to Rome who forces him into exile.
 Coriolanus desires revenge against all of Rome so he goes and sees Aufidius (IV.v),
leader of the Volscian army that Coriolanus had helped defeat when he was a Roman.
Aufidius is glad to have Coriolanus along his side in his new campaign against Rome
and together they march on Rome who has no chance with the Volscians under
Coriolanus’s leadership. While the Volscians camp outside the city’s walls Volumnia,
Coriolanus’s mother, comes and pleads with him to make peace. Coriolanus relents
and returns to the Volscian city Antium where he becomes a hero for making peace
with Rome. In the final scene, Aufidius appears jealous of Coriolanus and declares
that by not taking Rome Coriolanus has committed treachery. Aufidius has many men
about him and despite the lords’ pleas they pull out their swords and kill Coriolanus.
Common Themes of Justice
References
http://www.designwritingresearch.org/Shakespeare/ShakePoetics.htm
Alexander, Catherine M.S. Editor. Shakespeare and Politics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
2004.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book V.
Bloom, Alan & Jaffa, Harry V. Shakespeare’s Politics. University of Chicago Press & Basic Books, Inc.
Chicago. 1964.
Deal, Kenneth. 1999. “Justice in Richard III”, lecture and discussion, for faculty and students at
Huntingdon College, 7 April 1999. Notes by Jeremy Lewis.
Deal, Kenneth. 1997. “Justice in the Renaissance and in Measure for Measure”, lecture and discussion,
for faculty and students at Huntingdon College, 17 February 1997. Notes by Jeremy Lewis.
Deal, Kenneth. 2000. “Justice in King Lear”, lecture and discussion, for faculty and students at
Huntingdon College, 14 April 2000. Notes by Jeremy Lewis.
Deal, Kenneth. 2001. “Justice in The Tempest”, lecture and discussion, for faculty and students at
Huntingdon College, spring 2001?. Notes by Jeremy Lewis.
Figgis, John Neville. 1934. The Divine Right of Kings. .London: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, G. Wilson. 1951. The Imperial Theme: Further Interpretations of Shakespeare’s Tragedies
Including the Roman Plays. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd..
Lewis, Jeremy R.T. , editor. 2001. Justice: Huntingdon College Liberal Arts Symposium. Fourth edition.
Copley Publishing.
Oxley, B.T. & Grose, K.H. 1969. Shakespeare. Arco Publishing Company, Inc. New York.
Pocock, J.G.A. 19xx. The Machiavellian Moment.
Rozmovits, Linda. 1998. Shakespeare: and the Politics of Culture in Late Victorian England. Baltimore:
The John Hopkins University Press.