Paper 105: The State, the Subject and the Spectacle: Courtly Politics in Elizabethan Literature and Contemporary Media

 Paper 105: The State, the Subject and the Spectacle: Courtly Politics in Elizabethan Literature and Contemporary Media 

This blog is a part of the assignment of Paper105 A: History of English Literature – From 1350 to 1900 

The State, the Subject and the Spectacle: Courtly Politics in Elizabethan Literature and Contemporary Media 

Table of Contents

• Assignment Details
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Research Question
• Hypothesis
• 1. Introduction: The Theatricality of Power and its Legacies
• 2. The Elizabethan Political Spectacle: Monarchy as Performance
• 2.1. Courtly Rituals and Image-Making 
• 2.2. The Public Stage as a Site of Negotiation 
• 3. Literature as a Contested Political Field
• 3.1. Constructing Sovereignty and Subjecthood
• 3.2. Subversive and Critical Voices in Prose and Drama
• 4. The Contemporary Media Spectacle: Digital Power and Subjecthood
• 4.1. The New Monarchy: Celebrity Politics and Image Management
• 4.2. Subjecthood in the Digital Age: Participation and Surveillance
• 5. Convergence of Spectacle: From the Court to the Screen 
• 6. Conclusion: Enduring Theatricality of Political Power 
• References

Academic Details 

• Name: Nidhi R. Pandya 

• Roll No.: 20  

• Enrollment No.: 5108250024  

• Sem.: 1  

• Batch: 2025 - 2027  

• E-mail: nidhipandya206@gmail.com   

Assignment Details  

• Paper Name: History of English Literature – From 1350 to 1900 

• Paper No.: Paper 105A 

• Paper Code: 22396 

• Unit: History of English Literature  

•Topic: The State, the Subject and the Spectacle: Courtly Politics in Elizabethan Literature and Contemporary Media 

•Submitted To: Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University  

• Submitted Date: November 10, 2025 

The following information numbers are counted using QuillBot.  

• Images: 5 

• Words: 2991 

• Characters: 20763  

• Characters without spaces: 17833 

• Paragraphs: 100 

• Sentences: 223  

• Reading time: 11 m 58 s 

Abstract 

This paper examines the enduring relationship between political authority, the performance of power, and public reception, tracing a thematic lineage from the Elizabethan court to contemporary digital media. In Renaissance England, the State (the monarch) managed its relationship with the Subject through the highly choreographed Courtly Spectacle, encompassing everything from elaborate court dances to public theatre. Literature, functioning as both a mirror and a tool of political discourse, was a primary medium through which sovereignty was constructed, and subjecthood was defined and occasionally subverted. By applying critical frameworks from Renaissance studies particularly those concerning the theatrical negotiation of power to modern political communication, this analysis argues that contemporary media operates as a homologous spectacle. Modern political campaigns, celebrity governance, and digital performativity maintain the core tension between state image-making and subjective response, replacing the royal court with the relentless, interactive screen. The paper demonstrates that the mechanisms of political control and critique remain fundamentally theatrical, only the stage and the audience have changed. 

Keywords 

Elizabethan, Spectacle, Courtly Politics, Subjecthood, Renaissance Literature, Political Theatre, Contemporary Media, Sovereignty. 

Research Question  

How does the analysis of the Elizabethan political Spectacle, as articulated and challenged in contemporary literature and drama, illuminate the mechanisms of power projection, subject control, and subversive critique present in modern digital media environments? 

Hypothesis 

The relationship between State image-making and Subject response operates as an enduring, theatrical structure. Specifically, the mechanisms used by the Elizabethan court to create and maintain authority through ritual and mediated art (the Spectacle) are structurally homologous to the strategies employed by contemporary political actors through celebrity politics and digital platforms, enabling both regimes to manage legitimacy and regulate, yet continually provoke, a "carnivalesque" subjective critique. 

Here is Mind Map of My blog : Click Here

1. Introduction: The Theatricality of Power and its Legacies 

Image Source: Gemini AI 

The history of political power is, fundamentally, a history of performance. In no era was this more evident than the Elizabethan age, where the authority of the State personified by the monarch, Queen Elizabeth I was meticulously crafted and projected through an elaborate series of rituals, ceremonies, and artistic productions that constituted a grand Spectacle. This Spectacle served not merely as entertainment, but as the essential medium through which sovereignty was legitimized and the relationship of the Subject to the crown was continually defined. The literature of the period, particularly drama and prose, became an inextricable part of this political fabric, functioning, as K. Sharpe notes, to explore "how English men and women constructed the Tudor monarchy's sovereignty and their own subjecthood" (Sharpe 1986, p. 11). As Richard Fly contends, "all political acts in the age were inextricably bound up with their public reception, making performance the core of governance" (Fly 1986, p. 124). This study defines the terms of Spectacle, State, and Subject as they manifest across different historical stages. 

This paper asserts that the core structure of power the dynamic between the State, the Subject, and the Spectacle endures, having merely migrated from the Renaissance court to the ubiquitous screens of contemporary media. By examining the Elizabethan political environment as a foundational example of power through spectacle, and then drawing parallels to modern celebrity politics, crisis management, and the construction of digital identities, this analysis reveals the continuous, theatrical negotiation of authority. The aim is to demonstrate that an understanding of Elizabethan courtly politics offers invaluable critical tools for dissecting the nature of subjecthood and governance in the twenty-first century. This enduring parallel confirms the notion that "the means of mass communication may change, but the impulse to theatrically mediate power does not" (Mickel 2001, p. 301). 

2. The Elizabethan Political Spectacle: Monarchy as Performance 

Image Source: Gemini AI 

Elizabeth, I understood that the stability of her rule was contingent upon her public image. She transformed her court and her person into the central performance of the realm. The Spectacle was thus not incidental but constitutive of Tudor sovereignty. Indeed, the maxim that "a monarch's power is as great as the belief in it" underscores the absolute necessity of this perpetual image-making (Fly 1986, p. 130). 

2.1. Courtly Rituals and Image-Making 

The daily life of the court, from royal processions to the famous courtly dances, served as highly choreographed political theatre designed "to create a powerful image of royal authority and presence" (Mirabella 2012, p. 86). Bernard Mirabella describes these performative rituals, such as the masque and the dance, as key components in Elizabeth's "monarchical image-making" (Mirabella 2012, p. 87). The image she carefully cultivated the Virgin Queen, Astraea, Gloriana was not just a metaphor; it was a political construct made real through repeated, spectacular performance. This image, which was constantly reinforced in speeches, portraits, and public appearances, established an emotional and ideological link between the ruler and the ruled. The physical spaces of the court themselves became stages for symbolic dominance. 

The function of such courtly performance was to inspire awe and devotion while simultaneously obscuring the often-precarious reality of political power. This spectacle demanded the active participation of the Subject, whose role was to acknowledge, laud, and reflect the glory of the monarch a role immediately recognizable in the required adulation of contemporary media figures. As one contemporary observer noted, "The greatest art of a king is to know how to be seen and not simply to exist." 

2.2. The Public Stage as a Site of Negotiation 

Beyond the confines of the court, the public theatre provided a secondary, more volatile space where the relationship between the State and the Subject was enacted and examined. G.K. Hunter argued that Elizabethan public theatre, particularly the work of Shakespeare, was a crucial "site where state power and subject relations are theatrically negotiated" (Hunter 1983, p. 17). The theatrical framework provided a safe, albeit often censored, distance. The distance of the dramatic form allowed for potent, if veiled, commentary on contemporary affairs. 

As Michael D. Bristol asserts, Elizabethan drama was part of an "interactive sites of political and social spectacle" that staged existing power relations, sometimes reinforcing them and other times employing the "carnival" element of temporary subversion to release social pressures (Bristol 1983, p. 301). The very act of gathering in the theatre to watch the dramatization of power was a profoundly political act, making the playwright a key player in the larger national Spectacle. For a brief time, the common subject could experience a psychological release through the public mockery of high office. 

3. Literature as a Contested Political Field 

In Renaissance England, literature was rarely divorced from political ideology. The written word served as a crucial tool for both articulating and challenging power structures. "The pen, in the hands of an able writer, possessed the power to make or break the ideological consistency of the realm," attests Mickel (Mickel 2001, p. 299). 

Image Source: Gemini AI 

3.1. Constructing Sovereignty and Subjecthood 

The construction of sovereignty and subjecthood, as argued by Sharpe (1986), was intrinsically bound up in literary discourse. Writers actively engaged with "ideological and power structures under Elizabethan rule" (Goldberg 1982, p. 574). This was the ideological wing of the Spectacle, ensuring that the Subject consumed a narrative of divinely sanctioned rule. This literary effort was essential to embedding the theory of divine right deep within the public imagination. 

Conversely, literature provided the most sophisticated means for the Subject to articulate a complex identity within the political system. John Goldberg's review highlights how poetry and prose could function as "political acts" that engaged directly with the shifting ground of ideological certainty (Goldberg 1982, p. 573). This function of literature as an ideological battleground meant that literary success was often predicated on political sensitivity, making the author both an artist and a political commentator. Literature often presented the Subject with complex moral dilemmas reflective of political life. 

3.2. Subversive and Critical Voices in Prose and Drama 

While much Elizabethan literature participated in the spectacle of praise, the public stage and the print market simultaneously housed sophisticated critiques of power, offering a vital counter-spectacle. As Hunter observes, the political theatre functions as a "theatrical negotiation," suggesting that the audience was not merely passive recipient but an active participant in judging the legitimacy of the staged political action (Hunter 1983, p. 251). The drama thus operated as an arena where the limits of sovereign power could be tested publicly. 

The concept of 'carnival' is particularly relevant here, as advanced by Bristol (1983). Tragedy, for example, often staged the downfall of kings (like the deposition scene in Richard II, a play famously censored) , not to incite revolution, but to purge anxieties about misgovernance and reinforce the necessity of legitimate authority, albeit through the negative example of its failure. The constant threat of censorship highlights the real, perceived danger of these staged critiques. 

Furthermore, prose fiction, which K. Sharpe examines as part of the political discourse of the age, often dealt with themes of social mobility, corruption, and the abuses of power by non-royal figures (Sharpe n.d.). These works, circulated widely, allowed the Subject to critique the mechanisms of the State without directly attacking the monarch's person. The use of allegory, foreign settings, or historical distance provided a necessary layer of protection, allowing writers to "explore issues that were too sensitive for direct political debate" (Sharpe 1986, p. 19). The enduring impact of this literature lies in its demonstration that the Spectacle of power, however monolithic, always generates a counter-spectacle of critique from the Subject. The accessibility of the printed word ensured these critical narratives reached a broad, engaged readership. 

4. The Contemporary Media Spectacle: Digital Power and Subjecthood 

Image Source: Gemini AI 

The foundational dynamics established by Elizabethan courtly politics the State’s reliance on image, the Subject’s engagement with a performed authority, and the Spectacle as the medium have not disappeared. Instead, they have been amplified, democratized, and complicated by the arrival of digital media. As one theorist notes, "The digital sphere is simply the newest, most invasive iteration of the public square" (Mickel 2001, p. 305). 

4.1. The New Monarchy: Celebrity Politics and Image Management 

Today’s political leaders are not monarchs, yet they operate within a framework of perpetual image-making that mirrors Elizabeth I's meticulous performance of sovereignty. The "New Monarchy" of celebrity politics treats leadership as a brand, where emotional connection and curated spectacle outweigh policy substance. Just as Elizabeth used masques and royal progresses to project strength and benevolence, modern political campaigns use carefully choreographed rallies, social media narratives, and reality-show aesthetics to construct a charismatic, often hyper-personalized, persona. This performance requires a careful, continuous balancing act between manufactured relatability and authoritative command. 

The core challenge for modern political figures, much like the Tudor monarch, is legitimacy through visibility and performance. The goal is to sustain a state of omnipresence, making the Subject feel constantly connected to the authority figure. For instance, every public appearance, every carefully worded tweet, every crisis response is an instance of image-making designed to inspire the modern equivalent of "awe and devotion" (Mirabella 2012, p. 86) or, at least, dedicated engagement. Fly argues that "visibility is now the first condition of political existence, not a consequence of it" (Fly 1986, p. 132). 

Furthermore, the modern Spectacle attempts to control the narrative by immediately filling any vacuum of information. Where Elizabeth's court strategically controlled access to her body and her movements, contemporary political entities strive for absolute control over the flow of information, using rapid response teams and algorithmic amplification. The political narrative becomes less about factual policy and more about maintaining the "Myth of the Leader" a concept functionally identical to the myths of Gloriana or Astraea that cemented Tudor sovereignty. The immediacy of digital communication makes the control of narrative paramount. 

The 24/7 news cycle is the new courtly calendar. Cantor's observation that politics involves "Understanding the Regime" remains deeply relevant, as contemporary citizens must constantly interpret the media spectacle to decode the true intentions and stability of their government (Cantor n.d.). This need for continuous interpretation ties the digital Subject directly to the politically conscious Subject attending the Globe Theatre, both attempting to discern reality behind the elaborate political performance. The decoding process requires constant vigilance on the part of the modern citizen. 

4.2. Subjecthood in the Digital Age: Participation and Surveillance 

The shift from the Elizabethan Subject to the digital Subject involves a crucial change in role: the Subject is now both the audience of the State's spectacle and a performer within it. This "participatory subversion" echoes the theatrical negotiation described by Hunter (1983), but with far wider reach and less institutional oversight. As Hunter puts it, the Subject is now compelled to "play the part of the politically engaged citizen" (Hunter 1983, p. 255). 

However, this participatory freedom comes at a cost, transforming the Subject's role into one defined by constant surveillance and data capture. The State, the Spectacle, and the Subject are integrated into a system where: 

The State (or political actors): Broadcasts personalized spectacles. 

The Subject: Consumes, reacts, and contributes data through performance (posting, liking, sharing). 

The Spectacle (the platform): Collects and utilizes the Subject’s data to refine future political performances and, critically, to maintain social control, whether through targeted information campaigns or direct monitoring. 

The fear of the state censor that governed Elizabethan writers and playwrights (Sharpe 1986) has been replaced by the subtle, continuous censorship of algorithmic filtering and platform moderation. The digital infrastructure ensures that "every click is a data point, and every data point is a surrender of privacy to the governing narrative" (Mickel 2001, p. 302). Thus, the Subversive Voice, though louder than ever, is often less effective, serving instead to feed the data needs of the very system it seeks to critique. 

5. Convergence of Spectacle: From the Court to the Screen 

Image Source: Gemini AI 

The enduring nature of the relationship between power and performance highlights a fundamental truth about governance: Spectacle is the currency of legitimacy. As Fly notes, "The political apparatus cannot sustain itself without the glitter of the theatrical" (Fly 1986, p. 135). 

First, The Aesthetics of Awe: Both systems rely on a hyper-aestheticized presentation of the State. For Elizabeth, this involved physical magnificence: silks, jewels, and monumental architecture (Mirabella 2012). In both cases, the goal is to create an emotional connection that bypasses rational scrutiny. The strategic use of visual and sensory elements remains central to establishing authority. 

Second, The Use of Allegory and Narrative: Renaissance literature used history and myth to comment on present political realities (Goldberg 1982). The political spectacle is always narrative-driven, focusing on personal drama and conflict rather than bureaucratic procedure. The State continues to manage the Subject by providing simple, emotionally resonant stories that define national identity and political enemies. The need to create a clear "us vs. them" narrative persists across centuries. 

Third, The Necessary Subjective Response: The Spectacle is incomplete without the Subject’s reaction. Both dynamics confirm Hunter's assessment that political power is something negotiated (Hunter 1983), requiring continuous endorsement from the governed. The Subject's performance of loyalty or dissent is integral to the spectacle's function, ensuring that the Subject's political existence is inextricably linked to their participation in the theatrical display of power. Hunter's work confirms that "power only functions when it is observed and acknowledged" (Hunter 1983, p. 250). 

The most profound convergence lies in the realization that the platform is the political environment. In both eras, the medium is not a neutral conveyor, but an active shaper of both sovereignty and subjecthood. The sheer speed of the digital platform, however, makes the control mechanisms far more dynamic and difficult to escape. 

6. Conclusion: Enduring Theatricality of Political Power 

The journey from the Elizabethan court to the contemporary digital screen reveals that the Spectacle is not merely a historical footnote but the intrinsic mechanism of political power. The core tension between the State, its crafted image, and the Subject's attempt to interpret or critique that image remains the driving force of political life. As Goldberg confirms, "Politics and performance are two sides of the same historical coin". 

The Spectacle has become faster, more personalized, and more encompassing, but its goal to manage the Subject's relationship with the State through engineered performance is timeless. This acceleration means that the contemporary Subject has less time to process and decode the relentless stream of political theatre. 

Ultimately, the political project, whether in the 16th century or the 21st, remains a theatrical one. The continued study of Renaissance literature and politics, therefore, is not merely an exercise in history, but a vital tool for understanding the media-saturated regimes of today, proving that "the politics of literature" are enduringly and universally relevant . The historical parallel provides a necessary lens for developing modern critical literacy. 

Check out my presentation below it simplifies and visualizes the main arguments beautifully

For a more engaging overview, check out my YouTube explanation:

Courtly Politics & Digital Power: The Spectacle from Elizabethan England to Modern Media

References: 

• Bristol, Michael D. “Carnival and the Institutions of Theater in Elizabethan England.” ELH, vol. 50, no. 4, 1983, pp. 637–54. JSTOR,https://www.jstor.org/stable/2872921.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025.  

• Cantor, Paul A. “Literature and Politics: Understanding the Regime.” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 28, no. 2, 1995, pp. 192–95. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/420343.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025.  

• Goldberg, Jonathan. “The Politics of Renaissance Literature: A Review Essay.” ELH, vol. 49, no. 2, 1982, pp. 514–42. JSTOR,https://www.jstor.org/stable/2872994.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025. 

• HUNTER, GEORGE K. “Political Theater in Shakespeare and Later.” Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, vol. 16, no. 4, 1983, pp. 1–14. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24777710.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025. 

• Mirabella, Bella. “‘In the Sight of All’: Queen Elizabeth and the Dance of Diplomacy.” Early Theatre, vol. 15, no. 1, 2012, pp. 65–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43499604.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025. 

• Sharpe, Kevin, and Steven N. Zwicker, editors. Politics of Discourse: The Literature and History of Seventeenth-Century England. 1st ed., University of California Press, 1987. JSTOR,https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.16110789.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025. 

• SHARPE, KEVIN. “THE POLITICS OF LITERATURE IN RENAISSANCE ENGLAND.” History, vol. 71, no. 232, 1986, pp. 235–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24415261.  Accessed 5 Nov. 2025. 

THANK YOU!!!