HILARY MANTEL’S TRILOGY: RETHINKING ENGLISH HISTORY AND NATIONAL IDENTITY

ABSTRACT

The study analyzes Hilary Mantel’s trilogy “Wolf Hall” (2009), “Bring Up the Bodies” (2012), and “The Mirror and the Light” (2020), which functions as a powerful intervention in historical understanding and national identity formation. The aim of the research is to analyze how Mantel’s trilogy prompts a fundamental rethinking of conventional understandings of the Tudor period and, consequently, challenges narratives underpinning English national identity. The study employs hermeneutic and mythopoetic methods of analysis. The results of the research demonstrate that Mantel’s narrative techniques effectively immerse the reader in Cromwell’s complex consciousness, thereby destabilizing conventional, often demonizing, historical portrayals.  It is concluded that H. Mantel’s trilogy is more than historical fiction; it is a significant cultural text that demonstrates the contested nature of both history and identity. The findings underscore the trilogy’s power to encourage readers to critically engage with the narratives that shape English self-perception, ultimately arguing that rethinking history through literary engagement is intrinsically linked to rethinking national identity in the present day.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Исследование посвящено анализу трилогии Хилари Мантел «Вулфхолл» (2009), «Введите обвиняемых» (2012) и «Зеркало и свет» (2020), которая выступает в качестве мощного инструмента переосмысления понимания истории и формирования национальной идентичности. Цель исследования – проанализировать, как трилогия Мантел побуждает к фундаментальному пересмотру общепринятых представлений о периоде Тюдоров и, следовательно, ставит под сомнение нарративы, лежащие в основе английской национальной идентичности. В исследовании используются герменевтический и мифопоэтический методы анализа. Результаты исследования показывают, что нарративные приемы Мантел эффективно погружают читателя в сложное сознание Кромвеля, тем самым дестабилизируя общепринятые, часто демонизирующие, исторические образы. Делается вывод, что трилогия Х. Мантел является значимым произведением, демонстрирующим оспариваемый характер как истории, так и идентичности. Полученные результаты указывают на способность трилогии побудить читателей критически осмыслить нарративы, формирующие английское самосознание, утверждая, что переосмысление истории через литературное взаимодействие неразрывно связано с переосмыслением национальной идентичности в наши дни.

Keywords: deconstruction, identity, trilogy, myth, history.

Ключевые слова: деконструкция, идентичность, трилогия, миф, история.

Introduction. Drawing upon Paul Ricoeur’s influential concept of narrative identity, a significant body of literary scholarship investigates the multifaceted representation and formation of identity within literary texts. Ricoeur posits that human self-understanding is intrinsically linked to narrative, asserting that personal identity is constituted through the construction and interpretation of narratives that bridge the individual’s past experiences with their future projections. He further suggests that literary works function as a crucial site for the exploration and potential formation of identities, providing a space where different facets of human personality and experience can be examined and evaluated through narrative simulation [ 8, p. 16]. Building upon this theoretical foundation, scholar N.A. Lun’kova concludes that “[...] the mediation of [literary] works is absolutely necessary for the formation of personal identity” [ 5, p. 284]. Furthermore, M.K. Popova emphasizes the critical role of literature in exploring common stereotypes, particularly those related to national identity, which are vividly manifested in both anecdotal and literary forms. Popova underscores the reciprocal relationship between literature and the understanding of national identity, stating: “Undoubtedly, these reflections on the problem of national identity and literature are largely preliminary in nature; they rather pose questions than answer them. But there is one thing one would like to believe already now: literature helps to understand the problem of national identity more deeply, and the analysis of this problem contributes to a deeper and more subtle understanding of a literary work and all its components: its thematic richness, the artistic world, its elements: the system of characters, the images of the main characters, artistic detail” [ 10, p.48].

Drawing on these theoretical insights regarding literature’s capacity to explore and shape identity, particularly national identity, this article undertakes an examination of Hilary Mantel’s acclaimed trilogy: “Wolf Hall”, “Bring Up the Bodies”, and “The Mirror and the Light”. It is argued here that Mantel’s distinctive narrative techniques actively engage with and critically interrogate established historical narratives concerning the Tudor period. This engagement, in turn, prompts a critical re-evaluation of conventional understandings of English national identity as constructed through these historical accounts.

Materials and methods. The study is based on hermeneutical and mythopoetic analyses of Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell trilogy: “Wolf Hall” (2009), “Bring Up the Bodies” (2012), and “The Mirror & the Light” (2020). Hermeneutical analysis focuses on the close reading and interpretation of the novels’ narrative, characterization, and themes, while mythopoetic analysis explores how Mantel engages with and reworks the historical figures and events as cultural myths and archetypes. While acknowledging the extensive historical scholarship and popular representations surrounding the Tudor period and the figure of Thomas Cromwell, the core focus of this research is on Mantel’s specific textual construction and interpretation within these fictional works. The combination of these methods facilitates a comprehensive analysis of the trilogy as a complex literary work interacting with history, culture, and issues of identity.

Results and discussion. Hilary Mantel’s acclaimed trilogy is posited as a significant facilitator of national self-understanding for British, primarily through its comprehensive re-evaluation of pivotal periods in national history and the formation of national consciousness. Focusing on the era of the English Reformation and the reign of Henry VIII, Mantel meticulously deconstructs established myths and stereotypes, thereby illuminating the inherent complexities of national identity. The narrative adopts an analytical perspective on the XVI century English history and its central figures, notably Thomas Cromwell, often characterized pejoratively in traditional historiography, rather than presenting an apologetic or overtly condemnatory account. The contemporary salience of the trilogy for English self-understanding is further underscored by its engagement with enduring questions concerning power dynamics, morality, and the agency of the individual within historical processes, themes that retain profound relevance.

The significant reception the trilogy garnered within British society suggests that Mantel successfully engaged with sensitive dimensions of national self-understanding, implicitly highlighting the imperative for critical dialogue with the past to inform contemporary understanding. Consequently, the trilogy facilitates British national self-understanding by challenging established historical narratives and exploring the inherent ambiguities and complexities of the period.

Mantel specifically challenges reductive heroic or romanticized representations of the Tudor period, illustrating its significant political turbulence, religious conflicts, and moral ambiguity. This is exemplified by her revisionist portrayal of key historical figures, particularly Thomas Cromwell. Within Mantel’s narrative, Cromwell is depicted not merely as a Machiavellian figure, but as an efficacious administrator and an expedient political actor, an emblematic figure of his era whose complex actions, while at times ethically ambiguous, were often driven by the exigencies of power and the pursuit of order and stability during a period of profound transformation.

The American literary critic Frederic Jameson (“Antinomies of Realism”, 2015), offers a positive assessment of Hilary Mantel’s depiction of Maximilien Robespierre in the novel “A Place of Greater Safety” (1992). Jameson observes that Mantel’s portrayal successfully “unveiled the image of Robespierre without a satirical approach and caricature of his personality” [ 4, pp. 277-278]. He contends that this depiction enables Robespierre’s political program to “be taken seriously again” [ 4, p. 278].  Jameson posits Robespierre’s politics of virtue as a potential alternative within “the current absence of any genuinely socialist politics” [ 4, p. 279], and he praises Mantel’s contribution in enabling a re-evaluation of the historical novel’s function, specifically its capacity to move beyond hagiography or the legend of martyrs [ 4, p. 279]. This critical framework, which emphasizes Mantel’s role in re-evaluating historically maligned figures and their political ideologies, is also pertinent to her acclaimed trilogy on Thomas Cromwell. Thomas Cromwell, much like Robespierre, has historically been subject to vilifying caricature. Traditional depictions range from interpretations of Holbein’s portrait as showing “the face of a ruthless bureaucrat” [ 2, p. 151], to characterizations portraying him as “a cruel, cunning, and greedy servant of a powerful master, a malicious, albeit intelligent, destroyer of civilization, a conscienceless builder of a despotism that justly destroyed him in the end” [ 1, pp. 277-278]. Historians long neglected Cromwell’s political program, which was first explicated in detail by Geoffrey Elton in the 1950s. However, despite Elton’s foundational work, subsequent “academic fashion changed, and a new generation hated him again” [6].  In contrast, Mantel adopts a perspective aligned with Elton’s revisionist scholarship. She found Elton’s arguments compelling, particularly his thesis that Cromwell functioned as a visionary modern statesman who fundamentally transformed English governance from a system based on the king’s personal authority into a bureaucratic parliamentary structure capable of enduring royal incompetence and facilitating reforms through statutory legislation rather than royal decree [6].

It is widely posited that national identity is fundamentally shaped not only by historical events but also by the influence of myths. Sociologist L.G. Ionin, for instance, argues forcefully for the constitutive power of myth, stating that “myth is reality, for it influences it, changing it, creating or destroying [...] Mythological identity is true national identity, and it is on its basis that cultural and political «superstructures» are created” [ 3, p 98]. Drawing upon Ionin’s perspective, it can be asserted that national myths function beyond mere historical reflection; they actively interpret contemporary events and constitute a vital component of present-day reality. The manifestation of national myths is evident across various cultural forms, including literature. These foundational mythological narratives often emerge early in the process of state formation and exert significant influence on the national consciousness, thereby shaping the trajectory of historical developments: “You can’t know Albion, he says, unless you can go back before Albion was though of. You must go back before Caesar’s legions, to the days when the bones of giant animals and men lay on the ground where one day London would be built. You must go back to the New Troy, the New Jerusalem, and the sins and crimes of the kings who rode under the tattered banners of Arthur and who married women who came out of the sea or hatched out of eggs, women with scales and fins and feathers; beside which, he says, the match with Anne looks less unusual. These are old stories, he says, but some people, let us remember, do believe them” [7, p. 94].

Further illustrating the presence and function of national myths within the text is Cardinal Wolsey’s recounting of the origin myth of Britain in the second chapter of the first book (titled “An Occult History of Britain. 1521-1529”). This narrative traces the island’s beginnings from rebellious sisters and giants to the arrival of Brutus of Troy, who defeats the giants and founds New Troy (London), establishing a lineage from which the Tudors are said to descend. This particular myth serves to provide a deep historical and even mythical legitimacy for the Tudor dynasty, positioning them as the rightful inheritors of a lineage stretching back to foundational heroes. Such origin myths, by providing a foundational narrative, contribute to shaping the perceived historical trajectory and identity of the state. Relatedly, the text implicitly or explicitly engages with myths surrounding dynastic marriages, which historically served as crucial instruments for consolidating authority and navigating international relations: “Edward Plantagenet, son of the Duke of York, came as the first sign of spring: he was a native of Aries, the sign under which the whole world was made. When Edward was eighteen years old, he seized the kingdom, and he did it because of a sign he received [...] But the woman King Edward married – she brought, did she not, a claim to the throne of Castile? Very ancient, very obscure? ‘The cardinal nods. ‘That was the meaning of the three suns. The throne of England, the throne of France, the throne of Castile. So, when our present king married Katherine, he was moving closer to his ancient rights” [ 7, p. 95].

Hilary Mantel’s trilogy provides a compelling literary case study illustrating the impact of national myth on historical actors, particularly evident in the decision-making processes depicted for the young King Henry VIII. The narrative explores the challenges faced by Henry VIII, whose marriage to Catherine of Aragon, the widowed consort of his brother, Prince Arthur, failed to produce a male heir, thereby jeopardizing the stability of the succession. This situation implicitly raises an analytical question: to what extent was the failure of the marriage and the subsequent crisis attributable to historical circumstances versus the influence of deeply embedded national myths concerning dynastic legitimacy and succession? A pivotal scene illustrating this dynamic is Henry’s recounting to Thomas Cromwell of a dream featuring his deceased brother, Arthur. Cromwell provides an interpretation that reinforces Henry’s perceived authority, suggesting Arthur’s appearance serves to remind the King of his dominion over both the living and the dead. This moment, infused with mythological symbolism, empowers Henry to pursue the annulment of his marriage, effectively challenging the established myth of the inviolability of dynastic unions sanctioned by history or divine will. Mantel’s portrayal suggests that Henry’s resolve in this matter is intertwined with the broader national myth positioning the Tudors as the destined, foundational rulers of England, implying their actions, even those challenging tradition, are inherently legitimate within this mythological framework. This challenging of established norms and myths within the narrative aligns with a broader characteristic of Mantel’s writing: her approach to historical representation itself.

Following Derrida’s theoretical framework, it can be argued that a text where authorial intent is not posited as the sole determinant of meaning becomes subject to active reader interpretation [ 10, p. 117]. Written discourse, in contrast to oral communication, is characterized by a reduced connection to the author’s immediate presence, thereby facilitating a multiplicity of potential readings. In this context, deconstruction serves as a methodological tool for in-depth textual analysis, enabling the identification of latent meanings, internal inconsistencies, or contradictions that may not be consciously perceived by either the author or the reader during a superficial engagement with the text. Mantel’s literary project can be analyzed as employing a deconstructive strategy to re-evaluate and complexify the historical representation of Thomas Cromwell, thereby challenging conventional interpretations. She constructs a multifaceted portrayal of Cromwell that deviates significantly from the prevalent perception of him as solely a cruel and ruthless political figure. By foregrounding internal contradictions and moral dilemmas within his character, Mantel effectively interrogates established stereotypes and prompts a critical re-examination of historical narratives, potentially inducing a degree of epistemic uncertainty in the reader regarding conventional accounts.

In the concluding volume of the trilogy, the narrative highlights the destructive potential inherent in absolute monarchical power, demonstrating its detrimental effects on both the sovereign and the governed. Individuals positioned within this system, particularly those with acute insight, may experience profound existential crises stemming from their perceived role as mere instruments of the monarch’s will. Cromwell’s trajectory serves as a case study illustrating the detrimental impact of absolute power dynamics on all involved parties. While situated firmly within his historical context, Cromwell is depicted as forward-looking, endeavoring to establish foundational principles for a reformed state structure characterized by concepts such as freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and the diffusion of concentrated power across diverse institutions. His demonstrated capacity for pragmatism, delegation, and the construction of complex political alliances, including the co-option of potential adversaries, can be interpreted as foreshadowing elements of modern systems of checks and balances. The central narrative dynamic of “The Mirror and the Light” is arguably the psychological conflict between the monarch and his principal minister, a conflict that can be read as symbolizing the decline of absolutism and the emergence of a nascent political order. Cromwell’s final period in power is characterized by escalating hostility from courtiers, opposition intrigues, and, perhaps most significantly, the perceived erosion of his influence by the passage of time and unforeseen circumstances. Mantel’s narrative delves into Cromwell’s psychological state, revealing his anxieties, uncertainties, and increasing isolation. Cromwell, previously presented as a formidable architect of his own fate, is ultimately depicted as vulnerable and subject to tragic forces, thereby destabilizing conventional “hero-villain” binaries and inviting nuanced psychological interpretation.

Conclusion. By meticulously foregrounding internal contradictions, latent meanings, and the inherent complexities within historical figures like Thomas Cromwell, Mantel moves beyond simplistic, fixed portrayals, destabilizing conventional stereotypes and inviting readers into critically engaged understanding of the past. This approach not only facilitates a deeper psychological exploration of the central character but also serves as a commentary on historical power dynamics, demonstrating the detrimental impact of absolutism while simultaneously hinting at the emergence of political principles that foreshadow more distributed governance structures. Ultimately, Mantel’s work, viewed through this deconstructive perspective, exemplifies the capacity of literature to critically interrogate and complexify historical understanding, embracing ambiguity and multifaceted reality over singular, authorized versions of the past.

References:

1. Elton G. The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 2, The Reformation, 1520-1559, – UK: Cambridge University Press, – 1990. ‒ 752 p.  URL: https://ia803009.us.archive.org/33/items/newcambridgemode00elto_126/newcambridgemode00elto_126.pdf (access date: 20.04.2025).
2. Hitchens Ch. «The Men Who made England: Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall. » Rev. of Wolf Hall, by Hilary Mantel // Arguably. – Toronto: Signal/McClelland & Stewart, – 2011. – P. 151.
3. Ionin L.G. Sotsiologiia kul'tury. – M.: Izd. dom GU VShE, 2004. – 427 p.  [in Russian].
4. Jameson F. The Antinomies of Realism. ‒ London: Verso, 2015. ‒ 336 p. URL: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fredric-Jameson-The-Antinomies-of-Realism-2015.pdf (access date: 20.04.2025).
5. Lun’kova N.A. Rasskaz o Drugom kak pamiat’ o sebe: kontsepty pamiati i identichnosti v tsikle «Serebrianye gory» D. Eneva // sbornik statei: Pamiat’ vs Istoriia. Obrazy proshlogo v khudozhestvennoi praktike sovremennykh literatur Tsentral’noi i Iugo-Vostochnoi Evropy (po materialam II Khorevskikh chtenii) / Otv. red. I.E. Adel’geim. – M.: Institut slavianovedeniia RAN, ‒ 2019.  – pp. 276-288. [in Russian].
6. Mantel H. «The Dead are Real: Hilary Mantel’s Imagination». Interview by Larissa MacFarquhar. The New Yorker. 15 Oct. 2012. URL:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/15/the-dead-are-real (access date: 20.10.2024).
7. Mantel H. Wolf Hall. – London: 4^th Estate, 2019. ‒ 653 p.
8. Nazarenko I.I. Samoidentichnost’ i samoidentifikatsiia v khudozhestvennom proizvedenii: sposoby interpretatsii. Printsipy issledovaniia kollizii samoidentifikatsii: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie. – Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2024. – 56 p. [in Russian].
9. Nazarova R.Sh. Konets puti: dekonstruktsiia obraza geroia v zakliuchitel’noi chasti trilogii “Zerkalo i svet”// “Filologicheskie nauki” Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly. – M.: «Almavest», – 2025. – №3 – pp. 115-122. [in Russian].
10. Popova M.K. Problema natsional’noi identichnosti i literatura // Vestnik VGU. Seriia 1, Gumanitarnye nauki, – 2001. – No. 2. – pp. 45-48. [in Russian].