Themes Henry VI, Part 1

1 themes

1.1 death of chivalry
1.2 patriotism
1.3 saintly vs. demonic

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.