Fate, Destiny, and (surprise) Wheel of Fortune in Henry V

Considering its presence exists in virtually all of the history plays, it should come as no surprise that the Wheel of Fortune hovers over Henry V as well, serving as a universal mechanism affecting both commoners and kings.  The wheel itself is noted in a conversation in III.6 between Fluellen and Pistol in which they discuss the fate of Bardolph, who has been sentenced to death for the theft of a pax (essentially a small crucifix).  Pistol describes its “furious fickle wheel “(25), and Fluellen offers an excellent description of it, stating “Fortune is painted plind: and she is painted also with a wheel, to signify to you, which is the moral of it, that she is turning and inconstant, and mutability, and variation; and her foot, look you, is fixed upon a spherical stone, which rolls, and rolls, and rolls” (29-35).  That Fortune’s wheel is “plind” (blind) signifies the universality of it, placing everybody from Bardolph to Hal onto it as it turns.  Its only constancy is that it is “inconstant,” always changing the fate of the individual sitting upon it. 

Fortune’s inconstancy is a central issue pertaining to kings and kingdoms, as we have seen in Richard II, Henry IV, and even Titus Andronicus.  The fact that the characters mention it directly inserts the wheel into the play in obvious fashion, but the most important question remains: how does it affect Hal?  As the prologue notes, the play is able to tell history only in an “hourglass,” meaning that time will run out before the story is told in its entirety.  Some pieces must be either left out or mentioned only briefly.  Henry V focuses primarily upon Hal’s rise to the peak of his power, with the chorus ending, “Small time; but in that small most greatly lived/ This Star of England.  Fortune made his sword,/ By which the world’s best garden he achieved” (Epi.5-7).  Fortune, then, appears to be Hal’s ally in this play, “making his sword,” the weapon which turned him into the “Star of England.” This is, however, only temporary, as Shakespeare seals the fate of Hal and his kingdom through a connection to one of history’s greatest conquerors—Alexander the Great.

Though on a significantly smaller scale, Hal, like Alexander, conquers many of the lands of one of his world’s greatest powers in a relatively short period of time.  He then marries a foreign bride, dies rather mysteriously at a young age, and the proverbial “death” of his kingdom occurs shortly afterwards under his successors, with the epilogue noting that “They lost France and made his England bleed.” The first and perhaps most significant comparison is made in I.1, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury praises, “Turn him to any cause of policy, The Gordian knot of it he will unloose, familiar as his garter…” (45-47). As our note for line 46 very graciously tells us, the Gordian knot was “an intricate knot cut by Alexander in asserting his destiny to rule over Asia.” Through this comparison, the link between the two is established, as is Hal’s supposed “destiny” to rule over France.  The inevitability of his victory at Agincourt, therefore, is created and assumed for the rest of the play.  Hal affirms this in stating, “O God, thy arm was here! And not to us, but to thy arm alone, ascribe we all!” (IV.8.104-106) thereby crediting his victory to providential ordination.

There is one element to the Gordian knot story, though, that the note does not mention and I believe is rather significant.  Alexander did indeed undo the knot, but he did so, essentially, by cheating.  He was supposed to untie it, but he could not, leading him in his frustration to cut it with his sword.  He then told his army that he untied it, a moment of great inspiration for the troops and their enterprise.  This was absolutely manipulation through language, something Hal does very well himself.  What is more telling, however, is that while Alexander conquered a large portion of the ancient world, he did not actually conquer all of Asia, which makes sense considering that he was not actually ordained to do so.  If Hal’s “destiny” is related to Alexander through the Gordian knot, then, he is not destined to conquer all of France, but rather just parts of it, which is indeed what he accomplishes.  Though his conquest is no small feat, the more important relationship the two share is the fragmentation of their territories and the domestic conflicts that occur after their deaths.  The comparison, then, is complimentary in terms of martial prowess and political and linguistic shrewdness but also cautionary.  The events of Henry V does indeed end on a high note on what should be considered the top of the wheel, but as Fluellen reminds us, “she is turning and inconstant, and…rolls and rolls and rolls,” signifying that the end of this prosperity looms, with England “bleeding” in its wake.