Profane, Steal, or Usurp: Kingship, Divine Right, and Regicide in Shakespeare's Macbeth and Richard II

Abstract

A year ago Rachael Hencher was a student in my Shakespeare class (English 2214X/Y). The term paper she wrote in the second term was the first draft of the essay she presents here under the title, “Profane, Steal, or Usurp.” Those three words by themselves are a clever indication of the problem Rachael has identified, namely, how do you change the government in a society accustomed to monarchy, and where monarchs believe (or at least say they believe) they are anointed by God and rule by divine right? Rachael shows with great subtlety how and why this question is troublesome when we‘re interpreting a tragedy like Macbeth or a history play like Richard II. The essay she has written speaks for itself, and all I can do here is recommend it to you. And I can add, with admiration, that Rachael remains firmly aware of the differences which separate the two texts she is studying. “In Macbeth,” she writes in her final paragraph, “the audience sees a man of certain ambition rise to the greatest heights of power by compromising his conscience, only to be torn down due to his illegitimate claim”; in Richard II, by contrast, we witness a struggle between “a legitimate king who is a weak ruler, and an illegitimate usurper who is a strong leader.” What Rachael‘s analysis offers us is an appreciation of Shakespeare‘s willingness to wrestle with these ambiguities.

Dr. Ronald Huebert