Abstract
As post-Renaissance Europe creates modern concepts of statehood and sovereignty, figures like Bodin, Grotius, and Hobbes undertake ‘constructive’, system-building theories of sovereign authority. Dramatists, in the meantime, are de-constructing sovereignty by unsettling the divergent bases of authority and legitimacy claimed for it. Concepts like ‘rule of law’, ‘popular consent’, or ‘natural law’ often serve to characterize rival legitimacy claims, but such concepts’ scope and interrelationships can be vague. This chapter proposes a vocabulary and topology of legal and political authority within early modern drama. Two core categories—‘right’ and ‘duty’—are introduced to analyse legitimacy claims more precisely. Those, in turn, attach to twin normative claims, identified as legal ‘transcendence’ and legal ‘positivity’. Hence four basic types of legitimacy claims, each constantly defining itself in contrast to the others: ‘transcendent right’, ‘transcendent duty’, ‘positive right’, and ‘positive duty’. As those exercising or seeking power manoeuvre through their various legitimacy claims, they enact the scope and limits of the claims themselves, pointing us towards ‘deconstructive’ theories of sovereign authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Works Cited
Aristotle. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translations (J. Barnes, Ed., Vols. 1 and 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barber, C. (1959). Shakespeare’s festive comedy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Blackstone, W. [1753] (1893). Commentaries on the laws of England (G. Sharswood, Ed., Vol. 1: 2). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Bruster, D. (1992). Drama and the market in the age of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, J. D. and Rasmussen, E. (2001). Introduction. In J. D. Cox & E. Rasmussen (Eds.), W. Shakespeare. Henry VI, Part Three. London: Arden.
Erasmus, D. (1997). The education of a Christian prince. L. Jardine, N. M. Cheshire, & M. J. Heath (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forker, C. (2002). Introduction. In C. Forker (Ed.), W. Shakespeare. Richard II. London: Arden Shakespeare.
Heinze, E. (2009a). Heir, celebrity, martyr, monster: Legal and political legitimacy in Shakespeare and beyond. Law and critique, 20(1), 79–103.
Heinze, E. (2009b). Power politics and the rule of law: Shakespeare’s first historical tetralogy and law’s “foundations”. Oxford journal of legal studies, 29, 230–263.
Heinze, E. (2009c). “Were it not against our laws”: Oppression and resistance in Shakespeare’s comedy of errors. Legal studies, 29, 230–263.
Heinze, E. (2010). “This power isn’t power if it’s shared”: Law and violence in Jean Racine’s La Thébaïde. Law & literature, 22(1), 76–109.
Heinze, E. (2012). “Where be his quiddities now?”: Law and language in Hamlet. In M. Freeman & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and language: current legal issues (Vol. 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 201–220.
Heinze, E. (2013). The concept of injustice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Heinze, E. (2014). The literary model in comparative law: Shakespeare, Corneille, Racine. Journal of comparative law, 9(2), 17–27.
Herman, P. C. (2007). Macbeth: Absolutism, the ancient constitution, and the aporia of politics. In C. Jordan & K. Cunningham (Eds.), The law in Shakespeare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 208–232.
Kant, I. (1968a). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In Werkausgabe (Vol. 7, pp. 5–104). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Kant, I. (1968b). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In Werkausgabe (Vols 3–4). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Kantorowicz, E. (1997). The king’s two bodies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Martin, R. (2001). Introduction. In R. Martin (Ed.), W. Shakespeare. Henry VI, Part 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maus, K. E. (2008). Commentary on Richard II. In S. Greenblatt, W. Cohen, J. E. Howard, & K. E. Maus (Eds.), The Norton Shakespeare (2nd ed, pp. 943–950). New York: Norton.
Plato. (1997). Plato: Complete works. J. M. Cooper (Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Pugliatti, P. (1996). Shakespeare the historian. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Raab, F. (1964). The English face of Machiavelli: A changing interpretation, 1500–1700. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rackin, P. (1990). Stages of history: Shakespeare’s English chronicles. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Raffield, P. (2010). Shakespeare’s imaginary constitution. Oxford: Hart.
Rousseau, J. -J. (1964). Du Contrat social. In Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 3. Paris: Gallimard, Pléiade.
Shaw, M. (2014). International law (7th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spinoza, B. d. (2014). Tractatus politicus. Adelaide: University of Adelaide.
Ward, I. (1999). Shakespeare and the legal imagination. London: Butterworths.
Warren, R. (2003). Introduction. In R. Warren (Ed.), W. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, R. (1996). Natural law in English Renaissance literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurcher, A. (2008). Consideration, contract, and the end of The Comedy of Errors. In P. Raffield & G. Watt (Eds.), Shakespeare and the law. Oxford: Hart: 19–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heinze, E. (2018). Foundations of Sovereign Authority: The Example of Shakespearean Political Drama. In: Halsey, K., Vine, A. (eds) Shakespeare and Authority. Palgrave Shakespeare Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57853-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57853-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57852-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57853-2
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)