Fresh off the boat:)..I am NOT a fob:P

Narrative  Universals,

Heroic Tragi-Comedy,  and

Shakespeare's  Political Ambivalence

Review by Me for Patrick Colm Hogan

 Two of these  structures—romantic

and  heroic  tragi-comedy—dominate

Shakespeare's  work as  well.l  

The  romantic

plot  involves two people  falling in love, some

conflict  between  the  lovers and  their  society

(often  parents),  the  separation of  the  lovers,

and—in  the full, comic version^—their even-

tual  reunion.  

The  heroic  plot  involves a

usurpation of  social  power  inside a  society

(e.g., the overthrow of a king) and an invasion

of  the  home  society by a  foreign  power. In

the  full,  comic  version,  the  usurpation is

overturned  and  the  invasion is repulsed.

Most of Shakespeare's plots are identical. There is a difference  between Romeo and Juliet on  the one hand znd gakuntala (or, for that matter. Titanic) on the other. 

These  difference result from  the specification of prototypical  structures  (e.g., the development of  the  personality  traits, appearance, and  conditions of  the  lovers); the  rearrangement of prototypical  elements in discourse  (e.g., altering the order in

which  the  story is told or  shifting  the  focus  from  the  lovers to  some  appar-

ently  ancillary  character); the  deletion of prototypical  events  (as in  tragedy,

where  the  comic  resolution is absent); the  addition of further,  comphcating

events, and so on.

Heroic  Tragi-Comedy

Usurpation  sequence;  the  second is  the  invasion or  threat/defense

sequence.

Usurpation sequence. The  two may and  often do  appear  independently. The  usurpation

sequence involves the rightful  leader being removed from his/her position of

The  invasion sequence focuses on a conflict between  societies rather than within one society. In this sequence, a  foreign  power  attacks  the  home  society,  nearly  causing  the near destruction or metaphorical death of the society.

Thus usurpation is often  the act of a  family member. In some cases,

even  invasions  involve  familial  conflict  (as in  the  famous  battle of Rostam

and  his  son  Sohrab in  the  Persian  epic  Shdhndme

3 developmental sequences

Thus, in  the  usurpation  sequence,  the  usurper  violates

social law (e.g., fealty), the higher ethical principles (e.g., those of loyalty) that

underwrite  the  social  law,  and  the  divine  will  that  underlies  both

(e.g.,"divine right" for English kings or the "mandate of heaven" for Chinese

monarchs). Likewise, in  the  invasion  sequence, the home  society is ethically

and  spiritually  superior to  the  foreign, "attacking" society. 

The  usurpation  itself

must be  the  first  act,  the  initiation of  the  series of  events. It  cannot be a

response to prior  usurpations, prior  injustices. Plot order.

At the same time, that triumph  itself is evidence of divine authorization.

Since the godly side must win, whoever wins must be the godly side.

___________________________________________________

Presidential  speeches  and  government  propaganda  are  fairly  brazen in

emplotting national history in these terms. However, canonical literary works

are rarely if ever entirely unequivocal on normative alignment, absolute origins.

___________________________________________________

Shakespeare

Shakespeare takes up the standard motifs and development principles. He

uses some only occasionally  (e.g., the conflict  between  the loyal retainer and monarch - Lear & Kent)

Consider descriptive allignment. Shakespeare might parallel nature, not

only with  society, but with  the  hero's mental  state and personal  relations as

well.

Lear -  Lear's madness mirrors the disruption of  the  state  (due to his disposses-

sion), which in  turn mirrors  the disruption in his family  (due to  the  rule of

the children over the parent), which in turn mirrors the disruption in nature

(due to  the  terrible  storm). 

Another  standard  development  principle, famil-

ialization, is also  one of Shakespeare's most  common  strategies. 

Macbeth - In  keeping with a  cross-ctilturally  common  principle,  this  familiarization is  sometimes literal  (as in King Lear), but at other  times a matter of imagery or a charac-

ter's  associations, as in  Lady Macbeth's  thinking of Duncan  with  her  father

("Had he not  resembled/My  father as he slept, I had done  't" [II.ii.12-13]).

______________________________________________________

In  some  cases, Shakespeare  takes up a common motif, but  changes it in

significant  ways. For  instance,  the  killing of an  innocent  youth is a  fairly

widespread  motif in  heroic  plots  cross-culturally. 

Morally justifiable - Richard  III killing his nephews. 

                                 - Macbeth murdering Macduff's  son

______________________________________________________

A motif—or, rather, the combination of a motif and a development prin-

ciple—still  more  peculiar to  Shakespeare is  the  death of  the  usurper's

beloved, often  through suicide, and usually at a moment of particular  conflict

and suffering. This is presumably a technique of emotional  intensification.

King Lear - Goneril  commits  suicide  more or  less at  the

moment of Albany's  triumph. In  this case, the event is not so much  sorrow-

ful as horrible, a continuation of  the  terrible devastation  that marks this play,

even in "success."

_______________________________________________________

Richard II

Richard II focuses on  the  usurpation  sequence, though it does so almost

in  slow  motion,  dividing  the  usurpation  into  stages—thereby  revealing

another  one of  Shakespeare's  development  principles.  (We  find  something

similar in King Lear.

•  The  theme of usurpation is asserted at the outset when Mowbray and Bolingbroke  accuse one another
• However, in  the  second  scene, we hear  that Richard is himself a  usurper. Indeed, he is reported to be responsible for  the very murder  debated by Mowbray  and  Bohngbroke. 
• Should Bolingbroke be  killed, that eliminates one of Richard's  enemies. On  the other hand, if Mowbray is killed, then  (we may  infer  from  events  later in  the play)  that  silences  someone who might  have  testified to Richard's  guilt. 


• After  these  preliminaries, Bolingbroke is  exiled. In  keeping  with  the
  
• standard  structure, right  after  the  exile of Bohngbroke, the  story  turns to a
  
• threat, in this case from  Ireland. 
  
• 
  
• In the usual manner of Shakespeare's  (slight-
  
• ly modified)  prototypical  structure, Bolingbroke  does not  return to  fend  off
  
• this  threat. Instead, he makes use of the  opportunity to  stage his own  inva-
  
• sion, supported by the Duke of Brittany. 
• 
  
• In this way, Shakespeare doubles the foreign  attack sequence. (Doubling, or even  tripling, is another  development principle  used by  Shakespeare.) In  part  drawing  our  sympathy  toward Bolingbroke,  Shakespeare  presents a  series of  complaints  against  Richard
• (e.g., II.i.246-55). 
• 
  
• But right after  this we witness the affection  Richard's wife
  
• has  for  him  (II.ii).This  helps to  re-humanize  Richard  and  tends to  foster
  
• compassion  for  his  side in  the  conflict. Sympathy is not  the  only wavering
  
• value  here. 
• 
  
• Law  too is unclear. York  states  that  legal  right is on  the  side of
  
• Richard  (II.iv.167-68),  while  Bolingbroke  claims  illegal  dealings on
• Richard's part  (II.iiil28-35). 
• 
  
• Bolingbroke  then  goes on to  order  executions
• with  very flimsy justifications  (Ill.i), a point  with  both  legal  and  emotive
• ramifications.  
• 
  
• The  ambivalence  cultivated  throughout  the  play  (with  its
• intensification  through  familialization) is  stated  directly by York  when he
• says, regarding Richard  and Bolingbroke, "Both  are my kinsmen./Th'one is
• my  sovereign, whom  both my  oath/And  duty  bids defend;  t'other  again/Is
• my  kinsman, whom  the  King  hath  wronged,/Whom  conscience  and my
• kindred bids to right"  (II.ii.lll-15).i8

Trial  regarding  Gloucester's  murder.

But, first, the  trial is inconclusive  (as both  sides have reason to he)  and, sec-

ond, the purges engaged in by Bolingbroke  seem worse  than anything done

by  Richard.  

Indeed, in a  perversion of  the  idea of  providence, we  find

Bohngbroke himself playing God in making his decisions as to whether oth-

ers  should  live or  die. 

In  one  such  instance he is  exphcitly  called "god on

earth"  (Viii. 135)—a  sort of  ultimate  usurpation, but  one  not  punished by

divine intervention. In short, the only providence  this play appears to accept,

at least in  the short  term, is the providence of powerful  rulers. -POWER DYNAMICS

_______________________________________________________________

The play ends with Bolingbroke's  rejection of the henchman he used to

kill Richard and Bohngbroke's vow to "make a voyage to the Holy Land,/To

wash  this  blood  off fi-om my  guilty  hand"  (Vvi.49-50).

The  rejection  may

function to  indicate  some moral  decency on Bolingbroke's  part, some  lin-

gering  conscience. But it may  equally  operate to  indicate  that Bolingbroke

lacks  even  that  basic "honor  among  thieves" that we  find  in, for  example,

Macbeth.

The pilgrimage is a projected  epilogue of suffering. It is a Christian

specification of  the  temporary  exile,  the  time of  repentance  and  spiritual

renewal that precedes full  accession to kingship in  the complete prototypical

structure.

 But here too  there is ambiguity. The  epilogue of suffering is usual-

ly  the  act of  the  rightflil  ruler,  the  ruler  who  has  been  overthrown  and

restored, or of  the  loyal  retainer  who  was  unjustly  treated  but  has  been

returned to  his  rightflil  place. 

It is  hardly  clear  that Bohngbroke is  either.

Moreover,  the  vow of  the  pilgrimage  has  the  ambiguity of aU  epilogues of

suffering. On  the  one  hand, it is an  expression of  remorse  and an  act of

penance. On  the  other hand, it is a cheap way of freeing  oneself from  guilt,

purging one's conscience  and currying divine  favor.

It is not entirely clear that, at this point, Shakespeare fully  recognized  the

ambiguity in  Bolingbroke's  remorse, or in  the  epilogue of  suffering  more

generally. By  the  time of Hamlet, however,  the  hypocrisy, and  Shakespeare

recognition of that hypocrisy, are unmistakable. 

Claudius  is, to my mind, far preferable to BoUngbroke in admitting that he cannot beg forgiveness  for his

murder of King Hamlet,"since I am still possess'd/Of those effects  for which

I  did  the  murther:/My  crown,  mine  own  ambition,  and my  queen"

(III.iii.53-55). On  the  other  hand, if Shakespeare—and  his  audience—did

not recognize the ambiguity in Bolingbroke's final speech, that only enhances

the ambivalence of  the  play. It gives the audience some reason to sympathize

with Bohngbroke's feehngs of remorse, and to admire his spiritual dedication,

even if  this  hardly  counterbalances  the  affection  most  audience  members

have developed  for Richard  after  his defeat. - AMBIVALENCE

• 
  
• _____________________________________________
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Hamlet
  
• 
  
• As  the  preceding  reference to  Hamlet  suggests,  the  anti-functional
  
• ambivalence we have been  considering is also not  confined to plays  before
  
• Henry  V. It spans Shakespeare's career. 
• 
  
• Henry V does not mark a turning point
  
• firom  youthful  non-conformity to  mature  traditionalism  any more  than it
  
• marks a shift  from youthful  conformism to mature  emotional  and evaluative
  
• complexity. The  complexity is  there  from  start to finish. Hamlet  provides a
  
• clear instance.