"This Blessed Plot": An Ecocritical Approach to Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy

This research project aims at bringing to light the non-human dimension in Shakespeare’s second tetralogy, i.e., Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V. In the context of the military confrontations that preceded the Wars of the Roses, the disruption of human relationships bears an impact on the land and the non-human cosmos in general. Through his literary craft and thorough understanding of human and non-human nature, Shakespeare reveals an intricate network of relationships, which, even when broken, can be mended. My project is guided by a presentist understanding of literature. Studying the relationship between the human and the non-human in Shakespeare’s histories can also inform our own relationship with the land we inhabit and our mutual interdependence. Matter and spirit are integrated in this analysis and inspiration is drawn from Pope Francis’ so-called green encyclical <em>Laudato Si,</em> which invites us to see the earth as our common home and, consequently, exhorts us to be responsible and caring.

Shakespeare's Historiography

<p>This study explores, in a sixteenth century context, the historical thought and consciousness of a selection of Shakespeare's English history plays. Looked at in relation to contemporary historiographical works, it is concluded that the plays in question qualify as a form of dramatic historiography both transitional and progressive in nature. The study, after considering some aspects of Tudor historiography relevant to Shakespeare and his drama in the introductory chapter, goes on in Chapter One to explore Shakespeare's Henry VI sequence. My discussion finds that the interaction of the roles and requirements of both dramatist and historian has two important results: firstly an emerging awareness of the impossibility of presenting the historical "truth"; and secondly an appreciation that the (re)construction of a linear historical narrative (dramatisation), especially when developed from diverse Chronicle accounts, requires the dramatist/historian's critical and historical judgement concerning probability. Also observed in this chapter is the drama's capacity for making character as much a part of history as event. In Chapter Two Shakespeare's Richard III is juxtaposed with its main source, Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III. These texts provide a springboard for discussion of the tradition of oral history and the problems associated with its use as a source for authoritative historiography, and the apparent resemblance between the historian's and lawyer's pursuit of the "truth". The methods and principles of the courtroom are intimately related to those used by the dramatist/historian. The final chapter couples the anonymous history play Edward III with Shakespeare's most sophisticated history, Henry V. In this chapter I first discuss the growing sixteenth century distinction between poetry (the medium of the history play) and historiography. The history presented in Edward III is interrupted and disrupted by the "poetic" interlude of King Edward's residence at the Countess of Salisbury's castle; I argue that the play (ironically, given its own status as verse drama) privileges "history" at the expense of "poetry". In Henry V, in contrast, there is evidence of a conceptual shift in the use and perception of history. Here, also, is found the full realisation of the ineluctable evasiveness of historical "truth" through the contradictory accounts of the Chorus and the stage action, and the opacity of King Henry.</p>

Shakespeare's Historiography

<p>This study explores, in a sixteenth century context, the historical thought and consciousness of a selection of Shakespeare's English history plays. Looked at in relation to contemporary historiographical works, it is concluded that the plays in question qualify as a form of dramatic historiography both transitional and progressive in nature. The study, after considering some aspects of Tudor historiography relevant to Shakespeare and his drama in the introductory chapter, goes on in Chapter One to explore Shakespeare's Henry VI sequence. My discussion finds that the interaction of the roles and requirements of both dramatist and historian has two important results: firstly an emerging awareness of the impossibility of presenting the historical "truth"; and secondly an appreciation that the (re)construction of a linear historical narrative (dramatisation), especially when developed from diverse Chronicle accounts, requires the dramatist/historian's critical and historical judgement concerning probability. Also observed in this chapter is the drama's capacity for making character as much a part of history as event. In Chapter Two Shakespeare's Richard III is juxtaposed with its main source, Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III. These texts provide a springboard for discussion of the tradition of oral history and the problems associated with its use as a source for authoritative historiography, and the apparent resemblance between the historian's and lawyer's pursuit of the "truth". The methods and principles of the courtroom are intimately related to those used by the dramatist/historian. The final chapter couples the anonymous history play Edward III with Shakespeare's most sophisticated history, Henry V. In this chapter I first discuss the growing sixteenth century distinction between poetry (the medium of the history play) and historiography. The history presented in Edward III is interrupted and disrupted by the "poetic" interlude of King Edward's residence at the Countess of Salisbury's castle; I argue that the play (ironically, given its own status as verse drama) privileges "history" at the expense of "poetry". In Henry V, in contrast, there is evidence of a conceptual shift in the use and perception of history. Here, also, is found the full realisation of the ineluctable evasiveness of historical "truth" through the contradictory accounts of the Chorus and the stage action, and the opacity of King Henry.</p>

Diplomatic Preparation for the English Invasion of France in 1415

Introduction. According to the latest research, the managerial genius of Henry V was most fully manifested in the military, financial and diplomatic fields. The authors analyze in detail the royal diplomacy, which has not been the subject of special study. Diplomacy is analyzed as a space of political communication. Methods and materials. The basic methods of historical analysis were used to work with the material. The sources used in the work are diplomatic documents (treaties, “memorandums”, instructions to ambassadors and their correspondence with monarchs, decisions of royal councils, discussion of the course and results of negotiations in parliament) and chronicles. In historiography, the problem is traditionally considered within the framework of works devoted to the personality of Henry V or the history of the Hundred Years War. Analysis. The article analyzes three phases and three components of English diplomatic policy from the coming of Henry V of Lancaster to power to his invasion of Normandy: 1) negotiations with both sides of the intra-French conflict in order to prevent their reconciliation. 2) the territorial claims of Henry V in France (territory in exchange for giving up the “rights” of inheritance). 3) diplomatic activity as a disguise of preparation for war (territory in exchange for peace). Results. The authors concluded that the English in the years 1413–1415 are moving from military mercenarism on the side of one of the warring groups in the intra-French conflict to declaring themselves as one of the parties to the struggle for power in France with their rights and claims. The diplomacy of the English crown pursued the intentions of 1) demonstrating the impossibility of achieving the claims of the royal house of England on the continent peacefully; 2) maintaining schism and confrontation within the highest French nobility; 3) ensuring international recognition of the English monarch’s right to intervene in the intra-French conflict.

The Miraculous Victory War and Ideology in The Life of Henry The Fifth

In William Shakespeare’s play The Life of Henry The Fifth, King Henry V is described as an excellent speaker whose speech becomes the key element of the Britain’s miraculous victory in the Battle of Agincourt, and he attributes the victory to God. It is then worth to explore the reasons why Shakespeare highlights the power of the king’s speech and why the king hands the victory to God. This essay argues that Shakespeare’s emphasis on the power of Henry V’s speech in the Battle of Agincourt exaggerates Britain’s power and stirs the British’s sense of glory, and Henry V’s handing over the victory to God makes his colonial war seemingly rationalized, which strengthens the colonial dream and unites the Britons in the age of Elizabeth I.