Analysis and criticism Henry VI, Part 1

1 analysis , criticism

1.1 critical history

1.1.1 attribution studies


1.2 language
1.3 themes

1.3.1 death of chivalry
1.3.2 patriotism
1.3.3 saintly vs. demonic

analysis , criticism
critical history

some critics argue henry vi trilogy first plays based on recent english history, and, such, deserve elevated position in canon , more central role in shakespearean criticism. according f. p. wilson, example, there no evidence dramatist before defeat of spanish armada in 1588 dared put upon public stage play based upon english history [...] far know, shakespeare first. however, not critics agree wilson here. example, michael taylor argues there @ least thirty-nine history plays prior 1592, including two-part christopher marlowe play tamburlaine (1587), thomas lodge s wounds of civil war (1588), anonymous troublesome reign of king john (1588), edmund ironside (1590 – anonymous), robert green s selimus (1591) , anonymous play, true tragedy of richard iii (1591). paola pugliatti argues case may somewhere between wilson , taylor s argument: shakespeare may not have been first bring english history before audience of public playhouse, first treat in manner of mature historian rather in manner of worshipper of historical, political , religious myth.

another issue discussed amongst critics quality of play. along 3 henry vi, 1 henry vi has traditionally been seen 1 of shakespeare s weakest works, critics citing amount of violence indicative of shakespeare s artistic immaturity , inability handle chronicle sources, when compared more nuanced , far less violent second historical tetralogy (richard ii, 1 henry iv, 2 henry iv , henry v). example, critics such e. m. w. tillyard, irving ribner , a. p. rossiter have claimed play violates neoclassical precepts of drama, dictate violence , battle should never shown mimetically on stage, should reported diegetically in dialogue. view based on traditional notions of distinction between high , low art, distinction based partly upon philip sidney s apology poetry (1579). based on work of horace, sidney criticised thomas norton , thomas sackville s gorboduc (1561) showing many battles , being violent when have been more artistic verbally represent such scenes. belief play showed violence crude, appealing ignorant masses, , therefore low art. on other hand, play elevated above such direct representation of violence , instead relied on writer s ability verbalise , skill diegesis, considered artistically superior and, therefore, high art. writing in 1605, ben jonson commented in masque of blackness showing battles on stage vulgar, better delighted pleaseth eye, contenteth ear. based upon these theories, 1 henry vi, numerous on-stage skirmishes , multiple scenes of violence , murder, considered coarse play little recommend intelligentsia.

on other hand, however, writers thomas heywood , thomas nashe praised battle scenes in general being intrinsic play , not vulgar distractions illiterate. in piers penniless (1592), nashe praised didactic element of drama depicted battle , martial action, arguing such plays way of teaching both history , military tactics masses; in such plays our forefather s valiant acts (that have lain long buried in rusty brass , worm-eaten books) revived. nashe argued plays depict glorious national causes past rekindle patriotic fervour has been lost in puerility of insipid present, , such plays provide rare exercise of virtue in reproof these degenerate effeminate days of ours. similarly, in apology actors (1612), heywood writes, bewitching thing lively , well-spirited action, hath power new mould hearts of spectators, , fashion them shape of noble , notable attempt. more recently, michael goldman has argued battle scenes vital overall movement , purpose of play; sweep of athletic bodies across stage used not provide exciting spectacle focus , clarify, render dramatic, entire unwieldy chronicle.

questions of originality , quality, however, not critical disagreement 1 henry vi has provoked. numerous other issues divide critics, not least of concerns authorship of play.

attribution studies

a number of shakespeare s plays have been examined signs of co-authorship (the taming of shrew, contention [i.e., 2 henry vi], , true tragedy [i.e., 3 henry vi], example), but, along titus andronicus, 1 henry vi stands have been collaboration between shakespeare , @ least 1 other dramatist identity remains unknown, thomas nashe, robert greene, george peele, christopher marlowe , thomas kyd being common proposals.

the belief shakespeare may have written little of 1 henry vi first came edmond malone in 1790 edition of shakespeare s plays, included dissertation on 3 parts of king henry vi, in argued large number of classical allusions in play more characteristic of nash, peele, or greene of shakespeare. malone argued language indicated other shakespeare. view dominant until 1929, when peter alexander challenged it. since then, scholars have remained divided on issue. in 1944, e. m. w. tillyard argued shakespeare wrote entire play; in 1952, john dover wilson claimed shakespeare wrote little of it.

in perhaps exhaustive analysis of debate, 1995 article, shakespeare , others: authorship of henry sixth, part 1 , gary taylor suggests approximately 18.7% of play (3,846 out of 20,515 words) written shakespeare. taylor argues nashe wrote of act 1, attributes shakespeare 2.4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4., 4.5, 4.6, , 4.7 through line 32. taylor suggests temple garden scene (2.4), in rival factions identify through selection of red , white roses, may have been later addition. scenes 4.5 4.7 include series of rhyming couplets between talbot , son (4.5.15–4.7.50), which, while unusual our ears, apparently had electric effect upon audiences. traditionally, these lines have been pinpointed 1 of non-shakespearian sections of play. roger warren, instance, argues these scenes written in language banal must non-shakespearean.

other taylor, however, several other critics disagree warren s assessment of quality of language, arguing passages more complex , accomplished has hitherto been allowed for. michael taylor, example, argues rhyming dialogue between talbots – stichomythic – shapes kind of noble flyting match, competition can out-oblige other. similarly, alexander leggatt argues passages perfect blend of form , content: relentless click-click of rhymes reinforces point john talbot, arguments arguments death; every other line ending countered rhyme, every argument talbot gives john flee becomes argument staying. taylor , leggatt here arguing passages more accomplished critics tend give them credit for, offering counter-argument theory poorly written, not possibly shakespeare. in sense, failure use couplets elsewhere in tragic passage can attributed aesthetic choice on part, rather offered evidence of co-authorship.

other scenes in play have been identified offering possible evidence of co-authorship. example, opening lines of act 1, scene 2 have been argued show clear evidence of nashe s hand. scene begins charles proclaiming, mars true moving – in heavens/so in earth – day not known (i.ii.1–2). critics believe statement paraphrased in nashe s later pamphlet have saffron-walden (1596), contains line, ignorant astronomers in true movings of mars, day, never attain to. problem theory however, michael hattaway has pointed out, there no reason why nashe not paraphrasing play had no involvement in—a common practice in elizabethan literature. shakespeare , marlowe, example, paraphrased each s plays.

nasheeb sheehan offers more evidence, again suggestive of nashe, when alençon compares english samsons , goliases (i.ii.33). word golias , sheehan argues, unusual insofar bibles in shakespeare s day spelt name goliath ; in older editions of bible spelt golias . sheehan concludes use of arcane spelling more indicative of nashe, prone using older spellings of words, shakespeare, less so.

however, evidence of shakespeare s authorship has been found within play. example, samuel johnson argued play more competently written king john, richard ii, 1 henry iv, 2 henry iv , henry v, and, therefore, not attributing shakespeare based on quality made little sense. similar point made lawrence v. ryan, suggests play fits shakespeare s overall style, intricate integration of form , content, written him alone.

another aspect of debate actual likelihood of shakespeare collaborating @ all. critics, such hattaway , cairncross, argue unlikely young, up-and-coming dramatist trying make name himself have collaborated other authors in career. on other hand, michael taylor suggests not difficult construct imaginary scenario has harassed author calling on friends , colleagues him construct unexpectedly commissioned piece in hurry.

another argument challenges co-authorship idea basic theory of co-authorship hypothesised in 18th , 19th centuries due distaste treatment of joan. critics uncomfortable attributing such harsh depiction shakespeare, embraced co-authorship theory clear name , suggesting not have been responsible merciless characterization.

as question of order in trilogy written, twentieth century editors , scholars remain staunchly divided on question of authorship. edward burns, example, in 2000 edition of play arden shakespeare 3rd series, suggests highly unlikely shakespeare wrote alone, and, throughout introduction , commentary, refers writer not shakespeare dramatists . suggests play should more called harry vi, shakespeare, nashe , others. burns predecessor however, andrew s. cairncross, editor of play arden shakespeare 2nd series in 1962, ascribes entire play shakespeare, lawrence v. ryan in 1967 signet classic shakespeare edition, , michael hattaway in new cambridge shakespeare edition of 1990. in 1952 edition of play, dover wilson, on other hand, argued play entirely written others, , shakespeare had little composition. speaking during 1952 radio presentation of contention , true tragedy, produced, dover wilson argued had not included 1 henry vi because patchwork in shakespeare collaborated inferior dramatists.

on other hand, michael taylor believes shakespeare wrote entire play, j. j. m. tobin, who, in essay in henry vi: critical essays (2001), argues similarities nashe not reveal hand of nashe @ work in composition of play, instead reveal shakespeare imitating nashe. more recently, in 2005, paul j. vincent has re-examined question in light of recent research elizabethan theatre, concluding 1 henry vi shakespeare s partial revision of play nashe (act 1) , unknown playwright (acts 2–5) , original, non-shakespearean, play first performed on 3 march 1592. shakespeare s work in play, composed in 1594, can found in act 2 (scene 4) , act 4 (scenes 2–5 , first 32 lines of scene 7). in 2007, vincent s authorship findings, regard nashe s authorship of act 1, supported overall brian vickers, agrees theory of co-authorship , differs on extent of shakespeare s contribution play.

in 2016, oxford university press announced credit christopher marlowe co-author alongside shakespeare 3 henry vi plays in new oxford shakespeare series.

language

the functioning of language literally theme in play, particular emphasis placed on ability represent means of signs (semiosis), power of language sway, aggressive potential of language, failure of language adequately describe reality , manipulation of language hide truth.

the persuasive power of language first alluded charles, tells joan after has assured him can end siege of orléans, thou hast astonished me thy high terms (1.2.93). sense repeated when countess of auvergne wondering talbot , says servant, great rumour of dreadful knight,/and achievements of no less account./fain mine eyes witness mine ears,/to give censure of these rare reports (2.3.7–10). charles, auvergne has been astonished high terms bestowed on talbot, , wishes see if report , reality conflate. later in play, persuasive power of language becomes important joan, uses subterfuge sneak rouen, telling men, wary how place words;/talk vulgar sort of market men/that come gather money corn (3.2.3.5). later, uses language persuade burgundy join dauphin against english. burgundy realises succumbing rhetoric, muses himself, either hath bewitched me words,/or nature makes me relent (3.3.58–59). here, language shown powerful act on burgundy same way nature act, point unsure if has been persuaded natural occurrence or joan s words. language presented capable of transforming ideology. joan finishes speech, burgundy again attests power of language, vanquish d. these haughty words of hers/have battered me roaring canon-shot,/and made me yield upon knees (3.3.78–80). later, similar happens henry, agrees marry margaret merely because of suffolk s description of her. in line echoes burgundy s, henry queries has prompted him agree suffolk s suggestion: whether through force of report,/my noble lord of suffolk, or that/my tender youth never yet attaint/with passion of inflaming love, cannot tell (5.6.79–83). here, again, power of language shown strong confused natural phenomenon.

charles william sharpe engraving of talbot , countess of auvergne william quiller orchardson (1867)

language can employed aggressively. example, after death of salisbury, when talbot first hears joan, contemptuously refers , charles puzel or pussel, dolphin or dogfish (1.5.85). in french, puzel means slut, , pussel variation of pucelle (meaning virgin), added negative connotation. these 2 words, puzel , pussel , both puns on joan s name (pucelle), showing talbot s utter contempt her. similarly, use of word dolphin describe dauphin carries negative , mocking connotations, use of word dogfish , member of shark family considered dishonourable scavengers, preying on , anyone. again, talbot showing contempt charles position exposing mockery simple word play. other examples of words employed aggressively seen when english reclaim orléans, , soldier chases half-dressed french leaders city, declaring cry of talbot serves me sword,/for have loaden me many spoils,/using no other weapon name (2.1.81–83). similar notion found when countess of auvergne meets talbot, , muses, talbot feared abroad/that name mothers still babes (2.3.15–16). here words (specifically talbot s name) literally become weapons, , used directly strike fear enemy.

however although words shown powerful , persuasive, fail in signifying role, exposed incapable of adequately representing reality. idea introduced gloucester @ henry v s funeral, laments words cannot encompass life of such great king: should say? deeds exceed speech (1.1.15). later, when gloucester , winchester confront 1 outside tower of london, gloucester champions power of real action on power of threatening words: not answer thee words blows (1.3.69). similarly, after french capture rouen , refuse meet english army in battlefield, bedford asserts, o let no words, deeds, revenge treason (3.2.48). example of failure of language found when suffolk finds himself lost words whilst attempting woo margaret: fain woo her, yet dare not speak./i ll call pen , ink , write mind./fie, de la pole, disable not thyself!/hast not tongue? (5.4.21–24). later, joan s words, successful during play in convincing others support her, explicitly fail save life, told warwick, strumpet, thy words condemn thy brat , thee./use no entreaty, in vain (5.5.84–85).

language system shown open manipulation. words can employed deceptive purposes, representative function of language gives way deceit. example, shortly after charles has accepted joan new commander, alençon calls question sincerity, suggesting possible discrepancy between words , actions; these women shrewd tempters tongues (1.2.123). example occurs when henry forces winchester , gloucester put aside animosity , shake hands. public words here stand in diametric opposition private intentions;

winchester

well, duke of gloucester, yield thee

love thy love, , hand hand give.



he takes gloucester s hand



gloucester

(aside) ay, fear me hollow heart.

(to others) see here, friends , loving countrymen,

this token serveth flag of truce

betwixt ourselves , our followers.

so me god dissemble not.



winchester

so me god. (aside) intend not.

(3.1.136–143)















choosing red , white roses henry payne (1908)

act 2, scene 4 perhaps important scene in play in terms of language, in scene richard introduces notion of calls dumb significants, carries resonance throughout trilogy. during debate somerset, richard points out lords unwilling openly support either of them, since tongue tied , loath speak,/in dumb significants proclaim thoughts. (ll.25–26) dumb significants refers roses—a red rose join somerset, white rose join richard. such, roses function symbols, replacing need language. once lords select roses, these symbolize houses represent. henry chooses red rose—totally unaware of implications of actions, not understand power “dumb significants” have.

he places trust in more literal type of language, , selects rose in thinks meaningless gesture—but in fact have profound implications. henry s mistake results directly failure grasp importance of silent actions , symbolic decisions; gesture—especially such ill-considered one—is worth , makes worthless, thousand pretty words.

themes
death of chivalry

a fundamental theme in play death of chivalry, decline of england s empire on france , accompanying decay of ideas of feudalism had sustained order of realm. manifested in character of talbot, symbol of dying breed of men honourably , selflessly devoted of england, methods , style of leadership represent last dying remnants of outmoded, feudal gallantry. such, michael taylor refers him representative of chivalry fast decaying, whilst michael hattaway sees him figure nostalgia suffuses play, dream of simple chivalric virtus enacted every year @ elizabeth s accession day tilts, dream of true empire. designed appeal popular audience, , death scene calls troops not appear yet demonstration of destructiveness of aristocratic factionalism.

one of clearest examples of talbot s adherence codes of chivalry seen in response fastolf s desertion battlefield. far talbot concerned, fastolf s actions reveal him dishonourable coward places self-preservation above self-sacrifice, , represents wrong modern knight. in direct contrast chivalry talbot represents, chivalry remembers fondly days gone by:

talbot

i vowed, base knight, when did meet thee next,

to tear garter thy craven s leg,

which have done because unworthily

thou wast install d in high degree. –

pardon me, princely henry, , rest.

this dastard, @ battle of patay,

when in 6 thousand strong,

and french ten one,

before met, or stroke given,

like trusty squire did run away;

in assault lost twelve hundred men.

myself , divers gentlemen beside

were there surprised , taken prisoners.

then judge, great lords, if have done amiss,

or whether such cowards ought wear

this ornament of knighthood: yea or no?



gloucester

to truth, fact infamous

and ill beseeming common man,

much more knight, captain, , leader.



talbot

when first order ordained, lords,

knights of garter of noble birth,

valiant , virtuous, full of haughty courage,

such grown credit wars;

not fearing death nor shrinking distress,

but resolute in extremes.

he not furnished in sort

doth usurp sacred name of knight,

profaning honourable order,

and should – if worthy judge –

be quite degraded, hedge-born swain

that doth presume boast of gentle blood.

(4.1.14–44)

talbot s description of fastolf s actions stands in direct contrast image of ideal knight, , such, ideal , reality serve highlight 1 another, , reveal discrepancy between them.

similarly, talbot uses knights represent ideal past, remembering how used chivalric, gloucester in relation henry v, sees representing glorious , honourable past:

england ne re had king until time.

virtue had, deserving command;

his brandished sword did bind men beams,

his arms spread wider dragon s wings,

his sparkling eyes, replete wrathful fire,

more dazzled , drove enemies

than midday sun fierce bent against faces.

(1.1.8–14)

henry v has function throughout of play; presented not man rhetorical construct fashioned out of hyperbole, heroic image or heraldic icon. seen representative of celebrated past can never recaptured: there in play dominant, nostalgic, celebratory reminiscence of henry v lives on in immortality of preternatural legend.

the maid of orléans henrietta ward (1871)

the play, however, doesn’t depict fall of 1 order, depicts rise of another; how nation might have remained true signified words , deeds of talbot. in danger of becoming signified shortcomings of french, failings crop increasingly amongst englishman [...] manifest english decline towards french effeminacy , beginnings of reliance upon fraud , cunning rather manly courage , straightforward manly virtue. if old mode of honourable conduct represented talbot , henry v, new mode of duplicity , machiavellianism represented joan, employs type of warfare talbot unable cope. seen when sneaks rouen , subsequently refuses face talbot in battle. talbot finds kind of behaviour incomprehensible , utterly dishonourable. such, finds himself fighting enemy uses tactics incapable of understanding; french using sees unconventional methods, proves unable adapt. represents 1 of ironies in play s depiction of chivalry; resoluteness of talbot s honour , integrity, insistence in preserving old code abandoned others, defeats him; inability adjust means becomes unable function in newly established dishonourable context. such, play not entirely nostalgic chivalry; tenets of chivalry mocked word , action. play full of moments of punctured aristocratic hauteur.

talbot s mode of chivalry replaced politicians concerned , own advancement: winchester, somerset, suffolk, richard. jane howell, director of bbc shakespeare adaptation argues, concerned in first play [...] long time, code of people had been chivalry. death of talbot, 1 starts see demise of chivalry. narcissistic political infighting has supplanted self-sacrificing patriotism , chivalry: play charts disastrous breakdown of civility among english nobility. nobles concerned personal power above else have replaced knights concerned empire. such, end of play, both talbot , son lay dead, notion of english chivalry. in sense then, play depicts deaths of titanic survivors of ancien régime.

patriotism

the death of lord talbot , son, john alexandre bida (19th century).

hand-in-hand examination of chivalry play engages examination of patriotism. indeed, critics argue patriotism provided impetus play in first place. england defeated spanish armada in 1588, leading short-lived period of international confidence , patriotic pride—but 1590, national mood 1 of despondency, , such, 1 henry vi may have been commissioned dispel mood: patriotic emotions play shamelessly appeals resonate @ fragile time politically speaking. frightening memories of 1588 spanish armada, or of babington plot of 1586, led execution of mary, queen of scots; concerns on noticeably declining , still unmarried queen elizabeth; worries on catholic recusancy; fear of military involvement in europe, and, disquietingly, in ireland, combine make patriotic response matter of urgency. [the play] bracing attempt stiffen sinews of english in time of danger , deceit.

evidence of seen throughout. example, english seem vastly outnumbered in every battle, yet never give up, , prove victorious. indeed, when lose, suggestion made because of treachery, duplicitous means hardiness overcome. example, during battle of patay (where talbot captured), messenger reports,

the tenth of august last, dreadful lord [i.e. talbot],

retiring siege of orléans,

having full scarce 6 thousand in troop,

by three-and-twenty thousand of french

was round encompass d , set upon:

no leisure had enrank men.

he wanted pikes set before archers;

instead whereof sharp stakes plucked out of hedges

they pitch d in ground confusedly

to keep horsemen off breaking in.

more 3 hours fight continu d,

where valiant talbot, above human thought,

enacted wonders sword , lance.

hundreds sent hell, , none durst stand him;

here, there, , everywhere, enraged slew.

the french exclaimed devil in arms:

all whole army stood agazed on him.

his soldiers, spying undaunted spirit,

À talbot! À talbot! cried out amain,

and rushed bowels of battle.

here had conquest been sealed up

if sir john fastolf had not played coward.

he, being in vanguard placed behind,

with purpose relieve , follow them,

cowardly fled, not having struck 1 stroke.

hence flew general wrack , massacre;

enclos d enemies.

a base walloon, win dauphin s grace,

thrust talbot spear –

whom france, chief assembled strength,

durst not presume once in face.

(1.1.108–140)

here fastolf s betrayal direct cause of english defeat, not fact outnumbered ten-to-one, hit surprise attack or surrounded. notion returned several times, implication each time treachery can account english defeat. example, upon hearing of first loss of towns in france, exeter asks, how lost? treachery used? (1.1.68). upon losing rouen, talbot exclaims, france, thou shalt rue treason thy tears/if talbot survive thy treachery (3.2.35–36). later, when thinking on french campaign, richard asks henry, have not lost part of towns/by treason, falsehood , treachery (5.5.108–109).

h. c. selous s illustration of talbot engaging in battle in act 4, scene 6; plays of william shakespeare: historical plays, edited charles cowden clarke , mary cowden clarke (1830)

however, if english of mind can defeated treachery , betrayal, play presents french in awe of them, bearing begrudging respect them, , fearing strength in battle. such, whilst english attribute every defeat treachery, french opinion of english seems imply perhaps indeed way beat them. example, during siege of orléans:

alenÇon

froissart, countryman of ours, records

england olivers , rolands bred

during time edward third did reign.

more may verified,

for none samsons , goliases

it sendeth forth skirmish. 1 ten?

lean raw-boned rascals – e er suppose

they had such courage , audacity.



charles

let s leave town, hare-brained slaves,

and hunger enforce them more eager.

of old know them; rather teeth

the walls ll tear down forsake siege.



reignier

i think odd gimmers or device

their arms set, clocks, still strike on,

else n er hold out do.

(1.2.29-44)

as such, play presents, extent, english image of in line french image of them, both stressing resoluteness , steadfastness.

another component of patriotic sentiment religious note play strikes. on whole, catholic represented bad, protestant represented good: play s popularity [in 1592] has seen against backdrop of extraordinary efflorescence of interest in political history in last 2 decades of sixteenth century fed self-conscious patriotic protestantism s fascination own biography in history. not nothing part 1 persistently anti-catholic in number of ways despite fact in fifteenth century entire population of england nominally catholic (though not, of course, in 1592). french presented decadently catholic, english (with exception of bishop of winchester) attractively protestant. talbot himself element of this, insofar rhetoric correspondingly protestant. biblical references old testament (a source less used catholics) , speak of stoicism , individual faith. henry v cited example of protestant purity: king blest of king of kings./unto french dreadful judgement day/so dreadful not sight./the battles of lords of hosts fought (1.1.28–31). king of kings phrase used in 1 timothy, 6:15. lords of hosts used throughout old testament, , henry fought lord of hosts compare him warrior king, david, fought lords of hosts in 1 samuel, 25:28.

however, despite obvious celebratory patriotic tone , sense of protestant/english religio-political identity, lamentation death of chivalry, play ambiguous in overall depiction of patriotism. ultimately, play depicts how english lost france, seemingly strange subject matter if shakespeare attempting instil sense of national pride in people. rendered more when 1 considers shakespeare have written how england won france in first place: popularity of armada rhetoric during time of 1 henry vi s composition have seemed ask play henry v, not 1 begins death , proceeds dramatise english loses. in sense then, depiction of patriotism, although undoubtedly strong, not without ambiguity; story told play renders patriotic sentiment found within of hollow victory.

saintly vs. demonic

joan , furies william hamilton (1790)

demons, spirits, witches, saints , god mentioned on numerous occasions within play, relating directly joan, presented fascinating mixture of saint, witch, naïve girl, clever woman, audacious warrior , sensual tart. english continually refer witch , whore, french saint , saviour, , play seems waver between these 2 poles: joan first appears in state of beatitude, patient, serene, divinest creature of charles adoration, object of virgin mary s miraculous intercession, chosen rescue france, , made beautiful, courageous , wise [...] on other hand, , virtually @ same time, s combination of demonic, machiavellian, , marlovian.

joan introduced play bastard, who, before has seen or met her, says, holy maid hither me bring (1.2.51). later, after joan has helped french lift siege of orléans, charles declares, no longer on saint denis cry, joan la pucelle shall france s saint (1.7.28–30). similarly, when joan reveals plan turn burgundy against english, alençon declares, ll set thy statue in holy place/and have thee reverenced blessed saint (3.3.14–15).

on other hand, however, english see demon. prior combat talbot, exclaims, devil or devil s dam, ll conjure thee./blood draw on thee – thou art witch –/and straightway give thy soul him thou serv st (1.6.5–7). then, after fight, says, thoughts whirl d potter s wheel./i know not nor do./a witch, fear, not force, hannibal,/drives our troops , conquers lists (1.6.19–22). upon arriving in france, bedford condemns charles aligning himself joan: how wrongs fame,/despairing of own arms fortitude,/to join witches , of hell (2.1.16–18). talbot responds with, well, let them practice , converse spirits./god our fortress (2.1.25–26). later, talbot refers pucelle, witch, damn d sorceress (3.2.37) , foul fiend of france, , hag of despite (3.2.51), declaring speak not railing hecate (3.2.64). prior executing her, york calls fell banning hag (5.2.42).

joan herself addresses issue executed:

first let me tell whom have condemned:

not me begotten of shepherd swain,

but issued progeny of kings;

virtuous , holy, chosen above

by inspiration of celestial grace

to work exceeding miracles on earth.

i never had wicked spirits;

but you, polluted lusts,

stained guiltless blood of innocents,

corrupt , tainted thousand vices –

because want grace others have,

you judge straight thing impossible

to compass wonders of devils.

no, misconceiv d, joan of arc hath been

a virgin tender infancy,

chaste , immaculate in thought,

whose maiden blood, rigorously effused,

will cry vengeance @ gates of heaven.

(5.5.36–53)

having failed in efforts convince english holy virgin, , killing invoke wrath of heaven, alters story , claims pregnant, hoping spare sake of child. lists off various french nobles child s father in effort find 1 english respect. in sense then, joan leaves play neither saintly nor demonic, frightened woman pleading fruitlessly life.

an important question in examination of joan question of whether or not unified, stable character vacillates saintly demonic, or poorly constructed character, 1 thing, other. according edward burns, joan cannot read substantive realist character, unified subject coherent singly identity.

michael hattaway offers alternate, sympathetic view of joan argues character s movement saintly demonic justified within text: joan play s tragic figure, comparable faulconbridge in king john. turns witchcraft in despair; cannot taken unequivocal manifestation of diabolic power.

another theory joan comic figure, , huge alterations in character supposed evoke laughter. michael taylor, example, argues, fiendish provenance replaces divine 1 in [act 5, scene 5], scene reduces joan comic, bathetic dependency on shifty representatives of underworld. in line thinking, worth pointing out in 1981 bbc television shakespeare adaptation, joan, , french in general, treated predominantly comic figures. joan (brenda blethyn), alençon (michael byrne), bastard (brian protheroe), reignier (david daker) , charles (ian saynor) treated buffoons part, , there no indication of malevolence (significantly, when joan’s fiends abandon her, never see them, see talking empty air). examples of comic treatment of characters found during battle of orléans, joan ludicrously depicted defending city entire english army single-handed, whilst talbot stands incredulously watching soldiers flee 1 after another. example appears in act 2, scene 1, 5 of them blame 1 breach in watch @ orléans allowed english city. role comic figures shown in act 3, scene 2. after joan has entered rouen , others stand outside waiting signal. charles shown sneaking through field holding helmet large plume in front of face in effort hide.

the notion of demonic agency , saintly power, however, not confined joan. example, in opening conversation of play, speculating how talbot have been taken prisoner, exeter exclaims shall think subtle-witted french/conjurers , sorcerers, that, afraid of him,/by magic verse have contrived end (1.1.25–27). later, discussing french capture of orléans, talbot claims contrived art , baleful sorcery (2.1.15). indeed, french make similar claims english. during battle of patay example, according messenger, french exclaimed devil in arms (1.1.125). later, english attack orléans,

bastard

i think talbot fiend of hell.



reignier

if not of hell, heavens sure favour him.

(2.1.47–48)

here, english had done when being defeated joan, french attribute diabolic power vanquishers. unlike english however, french acknowledge talbot must either demon or saint. far english concerned, joan demonic, not open question.

cite error: there <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on page, references not show without {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see page).