On Fluellen's Figures, Christ Figures, and James Figures

The method used by some recent critics to prove that certain Shakespearean characters are “figures” of Christ (or of other biblical or Renaissance personages) was parodied by Shakespeare himself in Fluellen's comparison of Henry v to Alexander the Great. Its success is guaranteed in advance, since it allows the critic to select only the similarities between the two persons being compared without considering whether these are unique or whether they are more significant than the differences between them. The evidence is thus subjected to a double screening: the critic determines which events in the character's career can be compared to the historical personage, and then which aspects of those events are relevant to the comparison. Even the differences between them can be converted into positive evidence. It is therefore possible by this method to prove that almost any character is a figure of Christ or of King James or of almost anyone else, which is the great strength of “Fluellenism” and also its great weakness, since a method that can prove anything proves nothing.

Download Full-text

English Alexanders and Empire from the Periphery

Alexander the Great from Britain to Southeast Asia ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198777687.003.0008 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 211-242

Author(s):

Su Fang Ng

Keyword(s):

Cultural Identity ◽

Complex Pattern ◽

Alexander The Great ◽

Henry V ◽

Imperial Identity ◽

Imperial Expansion ◽

Classical History

This chapter focuses on Alexander the Great as the monarchical archetype for the medieval heroes of Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine Parts I and II (1587–8) and William Shakespeare’s Henry V (1599). In both plays, Alexander is used to negotiate a place for England on a global stage dominated by the twin poles of the Hapsburg and the Ottoman Empires. Marlowe imagines another northern tribe, Tamburlaine and his Scythians, invading the Ottoman center to build an empire from the periphery. Shakespeare relies on complex pattern of Alexandrian allusions to counterbalance classical history with an English medieval genealogy accompanied by a native heroism imagined capable of defeating the Ottomans. The chapter also shows how Marlowe and Shakespeare utilize Alexander to explore the complexities, ambitions, and limits of England’s imperial identity, and how their protagonists’ campaigns of imperial expansion foregrounded questions of cultural identity and intercultural encounter.

Download Full-text

Religious Scruples in Ancient Warfare

The Classical Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0009838800010612 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 36 (1) ◽

pp. 151-171 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

M. D. Goodman ◽

A. J. Holladay

Keyword(s):

Alexander The Great ◽

Civilian Life ◽

Greek City ◽

Political Behaviour ◽

Positive Evidence ◽

Cast Doubt ◽

Ancient Times ◽

Ancient Warfare ◽

Acid Test ◽

The Impact

M. I. Finley in his Politics in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1983), 92–6 has recently cast doubt on the extent to which religious phenomena were taken seriously in ancient times. We believe that in stressing the reasons for scepticism he has overlooked much positive evidence for the impact of religious scruples on political behaviour and that in generalising he has undervalued the differences in this respect between ancient societies. The significance of some of this positive evidence is admittedly uncertain since in civilian life scruples might be easy to observe without great suffering. The acid test is in time of war, so that is the concern of our present enquiry. That attitudes varied can be shown only by comparing societies. We have here limited our discussion to three for which the evidence is well preserved: the world of the Greek city before Alexander the Great, Rome before Constantine, and the Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman period. Elucidation of the reasons for their distinct attitudes would reveal much about each of these societies and its religious practices and conceptions, but there will be space here only to show that considerable variety did indeed exist.Most ancient peoples assumed that their gods approved of war; the pacifism of some pre-Constantinian Christians was exceptional. Nor did such rules in combat as were observed necessarily have a religious foundation. Ancient like modern scruples were often based on moral and humanitarian grounds, as in the treatment of corpses and civilians; the gods, as the guardians of general morality, might be involved in such matters, but only at a remove.

Download Full-text