How might an introduction usefully address the wording or terms of a question?

Often, picking apart or defining the key words in a question can help to build a strong, confident introduction to an essay. It is important to understand and work through exactly what an essay question is asking, as this will ensure a well-defined and precise exploration of the ideas at stake. A rigorous, clear introduction that defines its terms can make this discussion much easier to navigate.Below is a possible introduction to an essay question on Shakespeare’s history plays, dealing with the precise terms of the question and using them to lead into a discussion.Question: ‘Shakespeare’s works, particularly the history plays, are integrally concerned with the “necessary inhumanity” of leaders and rulers’. Discuss.Introduction:The notion of ‘necessary inhumanity’ is one which is open to a degree of interpretation. ‘Inhumanity’, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘extremely cruel or brutal behaviour’. Yet if the reverse ‘benevolence’ that constitutes ‘humanity’ can also be defined as ‘the state of being human’, then the ethical definition of ‘inhumanity’ can also be expanded to a state of not being human, a disregard for the naturally-felt human traits of emotion and mercy. ‘Inhumanity’, in this essay, will therefore be defined not only as ruthless cruelty, but also a tendency to disregard one’s personal, human emotions for the sake of logical action or manipulation of others. The extent to which this inhumanity is ‘necessary’ is also open to interpretation: there is a strong case to be made for the idea that inhumanity in Shakespeare’s leaders is necessary for their achievement and maintenance of political power, and, perhaps, to be a ‘good’ ruler. In Richard II, for example, Shakespeare sets up conflicting ideas of what constitutes a ‘good king’: a God-given right, or the fair, non-biased treatment of subjects, restricting oneself from having favourites. The critic A.D. Nuttall defines an ‘ideal ruler’ as someone ‘who has subordinated all personal pleasures, and with them all personal charm, to his political obligations’, suggesting that a deliberate inhumanity might indeed be necessary. In Henry V, the definition of a good ruler is more explicitly defined: to unify a nation in war against another. Despite this, the ambiguous motivations and reasoning of human passion and personal vendetta versus political manipulation represent a central instability in Henry’s character. This essay will examine the extent to which the rulers and leaders in these two of Shakespeare’s history plays are indeed ‘inhuman’, and the extent to which these states of inhumanity can be justified as ‘necessary’.