Cole Elliott

COL Miller

ERH-321

20 September 2017

Help Received: None

 

 

Part 1

 

John Ponet’s Treatise provided William Shakespeare’s English society with a perspective of ruling as a responsibility. It countered the inherited monarchy with a set of particular guidelines and rules as to what a person of power owed to his/her constituents. Completely foreign at the time, Ponet wanted to ensure that a king or queen could not simply neglect the responsibility that came with the power held by the position. Ponet, “attacks the basic assumptions of absolutism itself and advocates basing resistance to authoritarian government upon constitutional principles” (Hodgdon, 180). Here, Hodgdon argues that Ponet wants to attack absolutism—particularly the neglect that results from it—and to apply conservative “constitutional” principles as a way of resisting this ineffective governance. She comments further on his insistence of only two forms of effective government—absolute monarchy or a mixed-use commonwealth (Hodgdon, 180) and points to Ponet’s assertion, “that the ideal state cannot be attained until every member functions in complete harmony with the whole” (Hodgdon, 180). This provides Ponet’s assertion that the king or queen owe to the people what they unalienably are due, and in return, the people owe the king public service and devotion to one’s country.

This is further explained that there must exist, “a hierarchy of means for dealing with a prince who fails to recognize his responsibility to God and to his people” (Hodgdon, 181)—essentially stating that hierarchy altogether cannot be dismissed from government for both the interest of the ruler and of the people. Hodgdon goes further in relating Ponet’s belief in “the law of nature” with that of his beflief for the commonwealth—“In this law is comprehended all justice, the perfect way to serve and glorify God, and the right mean to rule every man particularly, and all men generally: and the only stay to maintain every commonwealth” (Hodgdon 182-183). Ponet seems to be asserting that a mixed-use commonwealth governing doesn’t as much indicate civic rebellion but rather natural, fair government for all citizens—including the ruler. The powerful ruler grants power from the people—in a democratic (constitutional) form—and the people return the favor by providing the ruler with a nationalism and prideful, expedient willingness to do well for the country in which they reside.

The concept of granting the ruler this power of nationalism accounts for times when the ruler needs it the most. The citizen duty to do well for the country may called upon in times of dire circumstances and Ponet comments, “In man’s commandments, men ought to consider the matter, and not the man” (Hodgdon, 187)—it is absolutely necessary for unselfish citizenship to be prominent when these times do occur. This also means that it must be a justified, rightful thing to do in this relationship with their ruler—“It is not the man’s warrant that can discharge thee, but it is the thing itself that must justify thee” (Hodgdon, 187). With this relationship comes the understanding that the ruler will expect great duty from the citizen, but the citizen will expect ethical, honorable, and justifiably moral duty in which they will perform.

Part 2

The understanding between the citizen and his ruler is represented in Henry V with King Henry’s motivational speech to his men to continue to fight onward in a dire time. Henry wants to ensure victory in France with a powerful and decisive end to the fight. He comes before his men to motivate them to continue the will to fight in order to ensure a victory for himself, and for them as well. Henry begins his speech with, “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, or close the wall up with our English dead” (V, III, i)—establishing his clear intention for them but makes an interesting word choice by using friends. This usage derives from Henry’s general alignment with the common citizen—as displayed particularly in Henry IV. He also makes the strong assertion that without continuing to fight, the death toll will climb—with resulting unfortunate circumstances for all, including the common soldier. He tells his men to brush away their gentleman qualities and, “imitate the action of the tiger: stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favored rage” (V, III, i). He wants them to pay forward their responsibility to him in fighting—to hold up their part of the governing understanding. He also attempts to motivate the men by implying they are from a war tempered lineage, “On, on, you noble English, Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof, fathers that like so many Alexanders have in these parts from morn till even fought and sheathed their swords for lack of argument” (V, III, i). Here, King Henry wants his men to understand that their Englishman status is that of military prowess. Shakespeare shifts Henry’s monologue from empathy of “friends” to purely motivating his men through intense passion in his tone. He continues to provide a sense of English nationalism with, “Let us swear that you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not for there is none of you so mean and base that hath not noble luster in your eyes” (V, III, i)—this concept of “noble luster” is a representation of what Ponet expects the king to demand of the civilians under commonwealth, mixed-use government. It is the passion and pride of setting aside all other duties and only laboring for the crown.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. King Henry V. Ed. Claire McEachern. The Pelican Shakespeare Series. Penguin, 1999.

 

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Ed. Barbara   Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.