As we move into the history plays, we see now perhaps more than ever Shakespeare’s application of the "Wheel of Fortune," in which various characters are destined to rise to prominence and eventually fall to disgrace or tragedy. We have already somewhat seen this in Titus Andronicus, though the "rises" were very sudden and short-lived before unfortunate (to understate it greatly) events befell the characters. Tamora, for example, quickly transitioned from Gothic prisoner to Roman empress to dead; Saturninus died very quickly after ascending to the Imperial throne; Lavinia’s status as an object of lust caused her to live in shame after being raped and mutilated by Demetrius and Chiron (oh, and later murdered by her father), who were in turn murdered shortly after their rise to prominence. Finally, the events of the play bring uncertainty to Marcus Andronicus’ rule at the play’s conclusion, suggesting that though he seeks to teach Rome to "knit," or come together, once again, Rome’s and therefore his body will eventually be assaulted, defiled, and destroyed. He is part of the wheel that left Titus, Saturninus, Tamora, and Lavinia to their ends and Rome's history tells us that he will not escape its cycle.
Though Titus is classified today as a "tragedy," it exists as a period piece commenting on a civilization’s history. Richard II and Henry IV do the same. Richard’s poor decision making positions his body for destruction almost immediately in his choosing to go to Ireland after exiling his most prominent political threat. In being physically absent, he gives Henry Bolingbroke the ability to assume the kingship by simply being a body physically able to assume the throne. Richard is eventually imprisoned and murdered. Henry’s rather precarious position is explored in the first part of Henry IV. Yes, he is the man made of meat sitting upon the English throne, but is he legitimate in terms of being ordained by providence to assume the kingship?
The events of the play's first part suggest that he does well in legitimating his claim, beginning in the first act in which a clear contrast between himself and Richard comes to the forefront with Henry choosing to forego a Crusade in order to maintain the stability within the realm: "It seems then that the tidings of this broil/Brake off our business for the Holy Land" (I.2.47-48). Henry realizes that the value of his physical presence in the realm to solidify his rule supersedes embarking on the Crusade, an expedition in which victories over "pagans in those holy fields" would bestow upon him the favor of God in which kings were expected to hold. Henry’s thinking of the Crusade and immediate recognition of its secondary nature to England's stability reflects an understanding of how to legitimize his body politic and therefore properly rule his kingdom, a base knowledge that Richard simply did not possess. England under Henry’s rule, then, seems to have a relatively bright future, particularly after Hal proves his merit in defeating Hotspur in single combat. With a knowledgeable ruler and a worthy heir, England at the end of this play certainly sits on top of the wheel. As we, and Shakespeare's audience, know, however, it does not escape the fate brought about by this literary trope, falling into one of its country’s most tumultuous periods after these two men are gone from the world. Even a stable rule, then, does not guarantee a stable future, an issue Elizabethans, like the Romans, knew all too well.
This thoughtful, well polished post does a lovely job of comparing the role of fortune in Shakespeare's imagined Rome and medieval England. The Henry IV and V plays, being much less tragic in structure than Titus or Richard II, nevertheless point to the changing fortunes of any polity--changes brought about by the inevitable human shortcomings of those appointed to rule. I only wish you had included a bit more evidence to give this smart reading a bit more texture.
ReplyDelete