The power of bullshit

Below is an essay I turned in for a Shakespeare class in university, perhaps one of the most best pieces of faux-erudition I have ever written, dug up from my archives. As I read through it, I grow more impressed with how I thoroughly absorbed the standard language used at the time in English departments at American universities.

If you're interested, read on -- otherwise I will summarize the best points for you:

1) Arviragus' hankering for blood can be regarded as a diversion from virginal to arterial blood.

2) Implying that just since Shakespeare wrote a play in 1598 about evil Welsh women, of course he'd remember that and not include them in this play

3) Desperately digging through all the historical plays in my Norton Shakespeare looking for some bullshit I could dig up about Welsh characteristics

4) Claiming that the Welsh in fact reverse colonized the British with their traditional virtues

5) Best of all -- citing the professor(!) as one of my sources. Had she balls I could not have carried them better.



---
The Significance of Wales in Cymbeline

A narrative thread pertaining to Wales grows evident through the latter half of Cymbeline. This thread is composed of several elements, for the most part laudatory, imbuing its component characters with what might be described as a military messianic nature. The salvation of Cymbeline and the capture of Lucius is conducted by "two boys, an old man twice a boy" (5.5, 57-8). These two boys possess a strong sense of valour, and in general this thread makes little attempt to incorporate any less than salubrious Welsh elements.

Nonetheless, such elements did compose part of the contemporary Welsh archetype. To welsh someone still implies a breach of trust, and a contemporary piece of slang in Shakespeare's time was a morgan, or counterfeited money. Wales was a relatively recently subjugated colony (in fact, the very first colony in the British Empire) and despite the recent Act of Union in 1536, memories of Welsh rebellion were still current. Indeed, Shakespeare had written in 1598 I Henry IV, which dealt largely with the rebellion of Owain Glyndwr and the seduction of Mortimer by Wales.

No such seduction occurs in Cymbeline as there are no Welsh women present. When Innogen enters Wales, she does so after having been transformed into a man. The issue of Welsh gender relations has been evaded by the deletion of all Welsh females, so much so that men keep house; or rather, keep cave. There seems to exist in Cymbeline's Welsh narrative trend some attempt at reducing any complications which might exist through an inclusion of women.
Why, then, does Shakespeare seem quite so determined to present Wales in such a good light in Cymbeline? To answer that question, we must examine how Shakespeare lauds Wales and Welshmen.

The traditional title of the heir to the throne of Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been since 1300 the "Prince of Wales." That the heir to the English throne should be named head of the Welsh nation is a sign of a special relationship which exists between these two nations. This relationship, which has at times been extraordinarily tense, is a thread which runs through British history. From Arthur onwards, Wales has in some sense been a font of Britishness, as the history of the Angevin, Lancastrian and Tudor lines are inextricably entwined with that of Wales. Richard II was the son of the most famous of the Princes of Wales, Edward the Black Prince. Henry V was born in Monmouth, while Henry VII had a Welsh grandfather. Of all English military leaders, the Black Prince and Henry V are perhaps best remembered.

The most common meme which flows through the Welsh thread in Cymbeline is that of virility. An old man and two boys rally British troops, save the King of Britain and capture the general of the Roman forces, all in the name of Britain. "Two boys, an old man twice a boy, a lane, / Preserved the Britons, was the Romans' bane," (5.5, 57-8) says Posthumus. The two princes are clearly represented here as warriors; indeed, Arviragus' Welsh name is Cadwal, or "Welsh warrior." By their victory over the Romans, the two princes seem to serve as a prefiguring link to the Black Prince, victor of Crécy and Poitiers, and Henry V, victor not only of Agincourt but over a rebellious Wales.

It is worth noting, though, that while these two princes are from Wales, they are not of Wales. They are in some sense colonists, though unwittingly so. One could argue that they have been forcibly transplanted into Wales; by that transplantation, they have usurped the place of the native Welshmen. Strikingly, there are no native-born Welshmen in this narrative; arguably this is because at this point in history, the British were Welsh (as the Saxon English had not yet arrived.) The colonial status of the princes is for now somewhat ambiguous.

Equally ambiguous seems their maturity. Posthumus describes them as "striplings … with faces fit for masks" (5.5, 19-21), implying an aura of immaturity. This battle is their first blooding, but they have willingly chosen to be blooded. "What a thing is't that I never did see man die, scarce ever looked on blood," (4.4, 35-6) says Arviragus. These phrases, while perhaps attributable to a common adolescent, implies a sense of harshness, but also a sense of anticipation. The battle, to the young princes, is an almost sexual encounter. It is an eagerly awaited rite of passage which denotes their transition to manhood. It hardly seems to be the "traditional" road to manhood, however.

The "traditional" road to manhood is through a sexual encounter, clearly delineating the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. By thus expressing potency, such an individual is accepted into the body of the patriarchy. However, in Wales, there is no woman upon whom the princes can be initiated. Though Innogen may present herself upon the princes' door, she is yet disguised as a page, and thus is removed from such an action. The valour of the princes, then, can be thought of as a sublimation of the sexual urge, which is then satisfied through victory over the opponent. Arviragus' hankering for blood can be regarded as a diversion from virginal to arterial blood. This is a meme of isolated masculinity, unmoderated by feminity, and while it may be useful for building warriors, it begs a question.

Why are there no women in Wales? Such a state of affairs seems almost barbaric. Men are reduced to, in Belarius' words, "keep[ing] house" (3.3, 1) and "play[ing] the cook and servant" (3.6, 30). Such a state of affairs might have seemed inverted to a contemporary audience, and most probably demeaning were they placed in such a situation. Yet Belarius, Guiderius and Arviragus seem entirely content with their rustic lives. The atmosphere generated seems to be one of domestic masculinity (and what an image that conjures!) where women need not apply. In part, it resembles that happy state which Leontes and Polixenes enjoy in The Winter's Tale prior to their marriage.

Why does Shakespeare appear so intent on eliminating women from this carefully crafted idyll? An answer may lie in the fate of Edmund Mortimer. In I Henry IV, Mortimer, Richard II's designated heir and one of the rebels against Henry IV, is captivated by Owain Glyndwr's daughter. So enchanted is he by her that he does not go to war; "Wales and a wife swallow him up" (Introduction to I Henry IV, 1152). Having previously painted this alluring picture of Welsh femininity and its effeminizing effects, Shakespeare may understandably be chary of introducing another such figure, which might distract from his two valiant princes.

It may then be that the complications arising from introducing a gendered dimension to the Welsh thread may have discouraged Shakespeare. However, it seems more likely that this absence is intended to emphasize the unsullied chivalry of the princes as well as the semi-barbaric nature of Wales. The two boyish warriors conjure images of Galahad and Parsifal, virginal warriors and great heroes both. It also seems to indicate a pre-civilized ideal masculinity, reinforced by their dwelling in a cave.

This pre-civilized meme seems appropriate in that Wales could be considered to be a highly marginal locale. Despite the Act of Union, despite the three centuries of English colonization, one could imagine that Welshmen were still in some sense the Celtic other, defiant yet at the encroaching English. However, such a picture of Welsh discontent is not raised. Instead, it is not the Welsh people who seem barbaric; it is Wales itself. The act of inhabitance forces an acceptance of a measure of barbarism, due to the environmental harshness.

Shakespeare thus propagates three major memes through the Welsh narrative thread; those of skill in battle, of isolated masculinity and of pre-civilisation. Combined, all three seem to form an appealing and interrelated composite picture. With the removal of the feminine figure, the princes can devote themselves to their battle; being raised in barbarism, they are both tougher and more callused than their British contemporaries. Why, then, choose Wales as the source? After all, could Scotland not have been a viable option for such warrior heroes?

Part of the answer may lie in the manner in which Fluellen is portrayed in Henry V. If Henry V follows the traditional Shakespearean form, where Act 3 contains the meat of development and the middle of Act 3 the most crucial scene (and one sees little reason not to do so,) it is very noticeable that Captain Fluellen is given equal time with Hal. In Act 3.3, the pivot scene of Act 3 and thus the play, Fluellen is the most active character among the four captains. These four captains are, of course, representatives of their respective nations. One might expect Gower the Englishman to take control of the situation. In fact, it is Fluellen the Welshman who commands the conversation and guides it.

This is fascinating; it is the Welshman here who takes the initiative and commands the composite British entity which is formed out of the four nations. The first colony has usurped leadership in the British empire, guiding the English. The subjects have, if not entirely become masters, at least are on equal footing with their former masters. This would seem to put the lie to the argument that Wales represents a conquered and dominated country, fit only to be exploited by its colonial masters.

In "A Brief History of Wales," Williams notes that in 1461, "the first full-blooded Welshman [became] part of the English aristocracy." By 1536, the date of the revised Act of Union, "any differences between Wales and England and between Welsh people and English people could not be found in the political arena" (Williams). Even more fascinating, Williams claims that "there had been growing ever so firmly a new feeling of Britishness was supplanting the old political and national boundaries and making possible the 'settling in' of Wales as part of what we can call 'The new Britain' ."

If Williams is correct, then the interpretation of Wales as an exploited space seems somewhat hollow. One might go so far as to claim that Wales was itself exploiting its erstwhile exploiters! Were Cymbeline a historical play, such an interpretation might be incorrect. After all, the changes which Williams notes began in the reign of Henry VI, but did not really begin to take effect till the reign of Henry VIII. Such a historical disparity would have to be observed, particularly in the treatment of Richard II, where the only part the Welsh play is to desert Richard.

Cymbeline, however, is not a historical play. It is a deliberate attempt to propagate memes, among them British inheritance of Empire from Rome and rejection of insularity in favour of a more worldly approach. The narrative threads which Shakespeare weaves into this purple toga are modified to fit the imperatives of the overall intent. Thus Shakespeare can manipulate his various previous interpretations of Welsh characters in order to present those aspects which seem most effective.

I would argue that the significance of Wales in Cymbeline is that of a harmonious resolution of a colonial dilemma. Wales was the first of colonies, and thus could have been continually exploited with little recourse but rebellion. Indeed, such was the case through the Lancastrian line. After that initial phase of exploitation, however, a phase of acclimatisation begins, where the urge to rebel is slowly bled away, though no power is bestowed upon the Welsh. Finally, a phase of incorporation begins, where the Welsh are absorbed into Britain through a process of devolution of power. Once incorporation has finished, the former colony has itself become a coloniser, allied to its former masters though different.

This would lend a new spin to the saving of Cymbeline by Belarius et al; the former enemies have become loyal allies. It would also explain the lack of Welshmen throughout the text; in a sense there are no longer any Welshmen, merely Britons. The memes which Shakespeare implants through the narrative might then reflect a sense of affirmation of the new role of the Welsh as fellow colonisers and unifiers. Indeed, the heirs to the British throne are Welsh; perhaps this might be a portent of the future of Britain? As Rome made way for Britain, perhaps England may make way for Wales? Or by extension, other dominions?

Thus I believe that Shakespeare presents in Cymbeline a rosy picture of Wales as an optimistic sign for colonialism. By using the example of contemporary Welshmen, he could reinforce the idea of Empire by showing that former subjects have become equals in the unification of Britain and the spread of colonialism. To do this, however, he had to present Wales in as flattering a light as possible given his maintenance of multiple threads. This necessitated a slimming of the role which Wales was to play so as to hone its message. Thus gender issues, which would have added a new dimension of complexity, were simply ignored. Wales therefore plays an important supporting role in the justification of the spread of the British Empire, and by corollary, colonialism.