Special Post--Fate/Fortune

With shifting historical circumstances playing such an immense role in tracing fate and fortune throughout Shakespeare this semester, I have chosen to discuss Norman Jones’ historical essay, “Shakespeare’s England,” in which he outlines and analyzes England’s history during the rules of the Tudors and James I.

Jones begins his essay by addressing the tumultuous state of English culture in 1564, the year in which Shakespeare was born, noting that he “was born into a dying culture…still reeling from the massive social dislocation known as the Reformation.  The religious and social world his parents knew as children had been destroyed by new ideas and government actions” (25).  He goes on to explain that the “Reformation” to which he refers constituted the almost thirty year transition from English Catholicism to Protestantism, a period of mass persecution coinciding with the assembling and disassembling of various religious institutions, with Shakespeare and his contemporaries being “handed the job of building a new, Protestant culture on the ruins of the old religion” after the Elizabethan Settlement was ratified in the late 1550’s.  This notion of uncertainty regarding the state of England and English culture during Shakespeare’s life becomes central to Jones’ essay as he remarks upon the new religious, social, political, and economic developments of the time:  

“The younger generation of Elizabethans had come of age with a heightened sense of personal choice.  The religious change, the social shifts, the changing economy, all confirmed the possibilities from which they might choose.  But this was not entirely a pretty picture.  One still had to make the right choices. God still ran the world, demanding obedience.  But obedience to which theology? Which Church? Which economic order? Which master? (39).

Jones offers numerous historical examples to bolster his arguments regarding these uncertainties.  My last two posts have discussed the role of the Wheel of Fortune in Shakespeare’s history and tragedy plays, and this literary trope was just as much a reality in sixteenth century England as it had been during the periods depicted in them.   Jones best reflects this in his discussion on religious change during the period.  Religion, still the foundation of European society, was wielded by those in power to expel their enemies: “The great lesson of the period between 1532 and 1559 was that religion was undependable.  It was a toy of the state, a game played by religious fanatics and crafty politicians” (27).  Henry VIII’s secession in from the Catholic Church in 1532 brought about the dissolution of monasteries as well as the persecution of Protestants with the Act of Six Articles, essentially a set of rules that were remarkably Catholic and known as “the whip with six strings.” After the young Edward IV’s rule brought about the beginning of true Protestantism and allowed Protestants such as Thomas Cranmer to assume more prominent roles in policymaking, Queen Mary immediately uninstalled and executed many of these individuals, including Cranmer himself, in her restoration of Catholicism.  During her rule, “Protestants fled abroad or were captured, tried, and burned for heresy…Protestant bishops were deposed and…were often executed for heresy” (26).   By the end of this “game,” as Jones calls it, thousands of individuals saw their fortunes change with each succession, including Elizabeth’s, as “the new monasteries and chantries were closed, masses were stopped once again, altars were again removed from the churches, and saints, roods, and stained glass windows depicting superstitions were again destroyed, and Catholic bishops [were] replaced by Protestant bishops—but not killed” (27). 

The inconstancy of this period is echoed most clearly, perhaps, in the events of Titus Andronicus with the Roman Lord’s lamentation:

          

            “Let Rome herself be bane unto herself,

             And she whom mighty kingdoms curtsy to,

             Like a forlorn and desperate castaway,

             Do shameful execution on herself” (V.3.73-76).

Stated in the immediate aftermath of Titus’ assassination of the Empress Tamora, the Goth queen “incorporate in Rome” (I.1.465) and arguably an allusion to Queen Mary (the violent queen of the different Catholic culture), Rome’s future looks relatively bleak.  Hope, however, resides in Titus’ son Lucius “To heal Rome’s harms and wipe away her woe” (V.3.148).  If read as a parallel to English history, England’s tumultuous periods of succession have led it to “be bane unto herself.” An argument, however, can be made for Lucius being similar to Elizabeth regarding his ability to “heal” his country’s “harms,” actually pronounced as “arms”—an reference to the fractured body politic of both the play and England at the time of Elizabeth’s ascension.  Yet, what certainty do the people of these countries have that this period of stability will possess any continuity given their histories?  Though James proves to be a relatively able king, during the period we are studying a peaceful succession after Elizabeth’s death was the issue, and the circumstances Jones illustrates regarding constant religious upheaval accompanying each kingship helps to better understand precisely why this was such a concern. 

That being said, I was disappointed to find virtually no reference to or analysis of any of Shakespeare’s plays.  The essay is rather short (14 pages), and I feel that since the book titled A Companion to Shakespeare is constantly discussing Shakespeare, there was certainly some room to offer some textual evidence from the plays to support some of his points.  How does, for example, Shakespeare address this issue of “building a new, Protestant culture” in one of his plays?  I enjoyed the work he did with his summary and analysis of English history, though, that I tried as hard as I could to look past this and sought to find a way in which it led back to my concept anyway.  With religious and cultural change being at the center of it, the historical context played well into the Wheel of Fortune trope that has been so impactful in the history plays we have discussed.  So, despite that rather glaring weakness (or inconvenience, which may actually be more appropriate), Jones offered much to write about.