A Royal Nature and The Unknowable Woman

In Shakespeare’s “Cymbeline,” Belarius repeatedly comments on his ‘adopted’ sons’ royal bearing. Even though they were not raised at court, the nobility of the boys shines through their attitudes and actions. For example, Belarius notes “Tis wonder that an invisible instinct should frame them to royalty unlearned, honor untaught, civility not seen from other, valor that wildly grows in them but yields a crop as if it had been sowed” (4.2 225-229). Belarius upholds the concept of nature over nurture – royal blood runs in the brother’s veins, and it makes them act as princes. It seems that Shakespeare is enforcing a ‘natural’ hierarchy amongst the populace. This contrasts with a scene from “The Alchemist” where Mammon comments on Dol’s nobility when she is wearing rich clothing and pretending to be of a higher class. Unlike Shakespeare’s treatment of the brothers, this scene seems subversive to the social order. Does Shakespeare’s writing reinforce class and governmental hierarchies? Why would he want to reinforce class and nobility in “Cymbeline?” Are there other readings of Shakespeare’s brothers that would make them seem more subversive?

When Cymbeline learns of the queen’s misdeeds, he asks an important question: “Who is ‘t can read a woman?” (5.5 58). This question reflects much anxiety over the shifting roles of women and women’s potential to gain and exert power. The king’s sentiments also support the idea that women are duplicitous and finally unknowable. How does this scene reinforce stereotypes and prejudices against women at the time? Is there also power in ‘the unknowable,’ a power that women might use to gain more control in life? And, are powerful women like the queen inherently corrupters and schemers?