Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Shackles in Shakespeare: On the Falsity of Personal Liberty in Renaissance England

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The extent to which individuals truly can master their liberty is a question that infiltrates the entire Shakespearean corpus. It is through a series of fraught socio-legal conflicts that Shakespeare’s audiences are treated to the comedies and tragedies of Europe’s transition into early-modernity. Socio-legal relationships fuel Shakespeare’s plots and his characters present challenges to the ways in which the reader thinks about law and legal process. In reality is “law” just the will of whoever has the most power? Does equality only exist for those born into the highest social substratum? Is the rule of law really as universal as it seems? By investigating these questions using four of Shakespeare’s apparently apolitical plays, the author examines the individuals within socio-legal relationships as a way of shedding light on the day-to-day realities of Renaissance England, something that more traditional scholarship has yet to pursue. Part One examines marriage, class conflict and legal participation in The Comedy of Errors. Part Two looks at the native-alien division and legal obligation in The Merchant of Venice. Part Three assesses the nature of empire and the security of prescribed knowledge in Cymbeline. Finally, Part Four probes wider issues of social control and subordination in The Tempest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Freedman (1991).

  2. Barton (1974).

  3. Barton (1974).

  4. See for instance, Candido (1990).

  5. Luciana, “If you did wed my sister [Adriana] for her wealth,” (CE 3.2.5).

  6. This theme is explored in greater detail regarding the Bassanio–Portia marriage in Part Two.

  7. Adriana, “Why should their liberty than ours be more?” (CE 2.1.10). See Maguire (1997).

  8. Heinze (2009c).

  9. Balthasar to Antipholus of Ephesus, “Herein you war against your reputation” (CE 3.1.86).

  10. Adriana, “I know his eye doth homage otherwhere”. (CE 2.1.104).

  11. See Heinze (2009c) discussing Plautus, The Menaechmi.

  12. Foucault (2009).

  13. Luciana referring to Dromio of Syracuse (CE 2.2.209).

  14. Luciana referring to Dromio of Syracuse (CE 2.2.203).

  15. Heinze (2009c).

  16. Aristotle (n.d.).

  17. Heinze (2009c).

  18. For example, Dromio of Ephesus vocalises his dissatisfaction at being punished for something that Antipholus of Ephesus did by stating, “Master, I am here entered in bond for you.” (CE 4.4.123) when the two are restrained custodia legis, and further, he uses rhetoric, “Will you be bound for nothing?” (CE 4.4.125) to indicate the irony of his situation whilst, prima facie, encouraging Antipholus into action.

  19. See Aristotle (n.d.).

  20. An educated audience would have been familiar with definitions of law such as that of Thomas Aquinas who said law is, “a rational ordering of things which concern the common good…” Aquinas (1959).

  21. Heinze (2009c).

  22. CE 1.1.19-20.

  23. Mere Syracusian merchant presence at 'marts' or 'fairs' constitutes the actus reus of criminal liability. See Heinze (2009c).

  24. The proposition that logos/ethos/pathos comprises legal argument is found in Aristotle’s Rhetoric I.2.1354a.

  25. Egeon recalls loss from a ship-wreck—a common grievance in early-modern societies (CE 1.1.105).

  26. Egeon lost his wife, son and one of the purchased twins in the wreck (CE 1.1.111).

  27. See CE 1.1.136.

  28. It is unclear whether the Duke can overrule the synods and as such what his role in the enforcement of law involves. Compare “we may pity, though not pardon thee”. (CE 1.1.98) and “Thy father hath his life”. (CE 5.1.391).

  29. In times of legal conflict, Angelo only seems reassured of his position through contract law, “I shall have law in Ephesus” and not through the apparent reputation of Antipholus (CE 4.1.84). This in itself marks a grand departure from previous feudal arrangements where the spoken word of a powerful, rich, white male held much authority.

  30. This theme will be explored in greater detail in Part Two.

  31. Shylock is evidently a successful money-lender given his ability to lend such high sums of money.

  32. Halio (2008).

  33. Halio (2008).

  34. Heinze (2009b).

  35. Kirschbaum (1962).

  36. This can be seen through Shylock's analogy of “land-rats” to “land-thieves” (MV 1.3.20-1).

  37. Evidenced by her expenditure of “fourscore ducats” in one night (MV 3.1.101-2).

  38. See MV 1.2.35-108.

  39. See Part One: The Comedy of Errors—Legal Participation.

  40. Epstein (1993).

  41. Spinosa (1993).

  42. Sokol (1998).

  43. Bassanio, “In Belmont is a lady [Portia] richly left,” (MV 1.1.161).

  44. MV 1.2.38.

  45. MV 1.2.52.

  46. MV 1.2.122.

  47. Contrast this to the position of Adriana in The Comedy of Errors.

  48. Adriana, “Why should their liberty than ours be more?” (CE 2.1.10) discussed in Maguire (1997).

  49. Cym. 1.1.130.

  50. Stage directions for Act 1.4 indicate that the two Romans, Philario and Jachimo, are joined by “a Frenchman, a Dutchman, and a Spaniard”.

  51. Cym. 1.4.105.

  52. “Let us leave here, gentlemen.” (Cym. 1.4.96).

  53. Posthumus switches between natural law and positivist positions throughout the play. He secures his intentions in posited law with Jachimo yet expects the natural law to have prevailed later in the play when he thinks that Pisanio has carried out the order to kill Imogen without any hesitation.

  54. The Second Gentleman describes the king's sons as being “slackly guarded” which is a reflection on Cymbeline's parental competences as well as being a wider representation of his monarchical competences. (Cym. 1.1.65).

  55. “Yearly three thousand pounds” (Cym. 3.1.9).

  56. Cym. 4.2.118.

  57. Cym. 2.4.13.

  58. Cym. 2.4.18.

  59. Heinze (2009a).

  60. Cym. 2.4.96.

  61. Cym. 2.4.166.

  62. Cym. 3.2.4.

  63. Cym. 3.1.31.

  64. Cym. 3.1.46.

  65. Galileo discovered Jupiter in 1610 and the first recorded performance of Cymbeline was in 1611. See Wells and Dobson (2009).

  66. Cym. 1.1.72.

  67. Cym. 1.6.137.

  68. Cym. 3.2.11.

  69. Cym. 3.2.20.

  70. James I of England had written a book, “Daemonologie” (1597), about witchcraft.

  71. Cym. 3.1.69.

  72. Skura (2004).

  73. Berger (1969).

  74. Tem. 1.2.179.

  75. Kelsen (1967).

  76. Machiavelli (2005).

  77. Austin (2002).

  78. Graefe (1624).

References

  • Aquinas, Thomas. 1959. Selected political writings (trans: Dawson, J.G.). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Aristotle. n.d. Generation of animals (trans: Arthur Platt). In The complete words of Aristotle: The revised oxford translations, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Bollingen/Princeton University Press.

  • Austin, John. 2002. Lectures on jurisprudence, ed. R Campbell. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.

  • Barton, Anne. 1974. Introductory notes to The Comedy of Errors. In The riverside Shakespeare, ed. Harry Levin, et al., 79–105. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Harry. 1969. Miraculous Harp: A reading of Shakespeare’s Tempest. Shakespeare 5: 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candido, Joseph. 1990. Dining out in Ephesus: Food in The Comedy of Errors. In The Comedy of Errors: Critical essays, ed. Robert S. Miola, 217–241. New York and London: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Paul. 1993. Law and subjective freedom in The Merchant of Venice. Dionysius 7: 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel. 2009. History of madness, ed. Jean Khalfa, (trans: Jonathan Murphy and Jean Khalfa). London: Routledge.

  • Freedman, Barbara. 1991. Reading errantly: Misrecognition and the uncanny in The Comedy of Errors. In The Comedy of Errors: Critical essays, ed. Robert S Miola, 261–298. New York and London: Garland.

  • Graefe, Johann. 1624. Tribunal reformation: A case against torture. Mentioned in George Ryley Scott. 2003. History of torture throughout the ages. Whitefish: Kessinger.

  • Halio, Jay (ed.). 2008. The Oxford Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Eric. 2009a. Imperialism and nationalism in early modernity: The ‘Cosmopolitan’ and the ‘Provincial’ in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline. Social and Legal Studies 18: 373–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Eric. 2009b. Power politics and the rule of law: Shakespeare’s first historical tetralogy and law’s “foundations”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29: 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Eric. 2009c. “Were it not against our laws”: Oppression and resistance in Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. Legal Studies 29: 230–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, Hans. 1967. Pure theory of law (trans: Knight). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Kirschbaum, Leo. 1962. Shylock and the City of God: Character and characterization in Shakespeare. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2005. The prince (trans: William Connell). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

  • Maguire, Laurie. 1997. The girls from Ephesus. In The Comedy of Errors: Critical essays, ed. Robert S Miola, 355–391. New York and London: Garland.

  • Skura, Meredith Anne. 2004. Discourse and the individual: The case of colonialism in The Tempest. In Shakespeare: An anthology of criticism and theory 1945–2000, ed. Russ McDonald. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokol, B.J. 1998. Prejudice and law in The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare Survey 51: 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinosa, Charles. 1993. Shylock and debt and contract in The Merchant of Venice. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 5: 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, Stanley, and Michael Dobson (eds.). 2009. The Oxford companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Eric Heinze for his continued support, encouragement and insightful guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, St Cross Road, Oxford, OX1 3UL, England

    Camilla R. Barker

  2. St Cross College, St Giles’, Oxford, OX1 3LZ, England

    Camilla R. Barker

Authors
  1. Camilla R. Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camilla R. Barker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barker, C.R. Shackles in Shakespeare: On the Falsity of Personal Liberty in Renaissance England. Liverpool Law Rev 35, 25–42 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-013-9143-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-013-9143-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation