In reading one of last week's assigned readings from the Bedford Companion I was struck by a statement made on page 306 and its relationship to one of the story lines in The Merchant of Venice:
On taking the throne in 1558, Queen Elizabeth regularly presented herself as a possible partner in marriage. Using the prospect of royal alliance as international leverage, she welcomed suitors (or their brokers) from Spain, France, Denmark, and other European states for over two decades.
After reading that it was hard for me not to think back to the first weeks of this class, Portia, and the challenge that her father created at his death for anyone interested in marrying, and thereby forming an alliance with, his young daughter.
PORTIA
...O me, the word 'choose!' I may
neither choose whom I would nor refuse whom I
dislike; so is the will of a living daughter curbed
by the will of a dead father. Is it not hard,
Nerissa, that I cannot choose one nor refuse none?
Your father was ever virtuous; and holy men at their
death have good inspirations: therefore the lottery,
that he hath devised in these three chests of gold,
silver and lead, whereof who chooses his meaning
chooses you, will, no doubt, never be chosen by any
rightly but one who shall rightly love. But what
warmth is there in your affection towards any of
these princely suitors that are already come?1.2.16-29
The Merchant of Venice would have been written somewhere near the end of Elizabeth's reign and it's hard for me not to see the relationship between Portia's plight and Elizabeth's political need. Holding herself up as a possible partner in marriage, she, like Portia, welcomed many suitors. Portia's lament, "Is it not hard, Nerissa, that I cannot choose one nor refuse none?" must have been the state that Elizabeth felt herself to be in. Her political well being and the well being of England would have ridden on her never really choosing a suitor, but always having to play the part of the suited.
It is interesting to think, as was implied in the Bedford Companion, that political expedience and financial necessities required that the monarchy of England had to dangle their children, and in the case of Elizabeth, herself, as bait to attract the attention, alliances, and finances of the surrounding countries.
We don't often think in these terms when it comes to the monarchy of England, especially with the recent Royal Wedding that seems to have had so little to do with political power and so much to do with our common notions of love and romance. What surprises me is how much this smacks of sacrifice on the part of the Monarchy. I've typically thought, in my American way, that the Monarchy was completely self-serving. I'm thinking now that my view of this may have been completely wrong.
3 comments:
I find this to be a very interesting facts about Queen Elizabeth and your viewpoint from the perspective of the recent royal wedding. I find Shakespeare's work to also be remarkably historical of his time period, however they still maintain a great deal of relevance to today's society. I find your observation to be incredibly accurate.
I do find that we, as Americans, have a mental block in thinking about the monarchy--sort of like trying to figure out cricket! But your post does a nice job, Jeff, of drawing in the Bedford materials and considering the politics and symbols of monarchy. As we've seen in this class, our understanding of Shakespeare is greatly enhanced by this perspective.
"We don't often think in these terms when it comes to the monarchy of England, especially with the recent Royal Wedding that seems to have had so little to do with political power and so much to do with our common notions of love and romance."
That's a great thought. Monarchy really is crazy. I think our version of coping with its existence is to romanticize those rulers we owe something to while bastardizing the ones we don't.
Post a Comment