David Bianca IIIA, English Portuguese, Group 5

Henry V and Ne

Historicis!

In the 1980s, New Historicism was a strikingly innovative way of examining literary history, as well as practicing literary theory. Greatly infl ence! "y the work of #o is $lth sser an! %ichel &o ca lt, New Historicists in $merica an! their 'ritish co nterparts, ( lt ral %aterialists, set to rewrite the history of )estern literat re in s ch a way as to challenge what they consi!ere! the socio*politically !etermine! literary canon of the past. In practice, this meant that classical texts from +enaissance an! +omanticism * ,hakespeare-s plays in partic lar * were re*viewe! from a far less favora"le perspective. great works of art were !iscovere! to have "een repro! cing the !isco rses of power an! s staine! the system, witho t ever serio sly challenging it * asserting th s the oppressive omnipotence of c lt re. New Historicism fre/ ently a!!resses the i!ea that the lowest common !enominator for all h man actions is power, so the New Historicist seeks to fin! examples of power an! how it is !isperse! within the text. 0ower is a means thro gh which the marginali1e! are controlle!, an! the thing that the marginali1e! 2or, other3 seek to gain. 4his relates "ack to the i!ea that "eca se literat re is written "y those who have the most power, there m st "e !etails in it that show the views of the common people. New Historicists seek to fin! 5sites of str ggle5 to i!entify 6 st who is the gro p or entity with the most power. 5I "elieve that nothing comes of nothing, even in ,hakespeare. I wante! to know where he got the matter he was working with an! what he !i! with that matter5. 4his is what ,tephen Green"latt states. He is regar!e! "y many as one of the fo n!ers of New Historicism, a set of critical practices that he often refers to as 5c lt ral poetics5. his works have "een infl ential since the early 1980s when he intro! ce! the term. Green"latt has written an! e!ite! n mero s "ooks

an! articles relevant to new historicism, the st !y of c lt re, +enaissance st !ies an! ,hakespeare st !ies an! is consi!ere! to "e an expert in these fiel!s. His no"le attempt to !efamiliari1e ,hakespeare, however, very soon proves to "e a thoro gh, well*planne! an! s premely exec te! !en nciation of everything ,hakespeare stan!s for in the h manist tra!ition incl !ing, an! it is to this that Green"latt pays most attention, the resistance of the in!ivi! al an! the ceaseless, potentially s "versive / estioning of a thorities. In Green"latt-s essays, from a -relentless !emystifier of c lt re- ,hakespeare is masterf lly t rne! into a -! tif l servant, content to improvise within its 2his c lt re-s3 ortho!oxy. 4his alone has sweeping conse/ ences to which we will ret rn later. %o!ern scholars writing a"o t 7Henry 89 fre/ ently remark on its !istinctiveness. :nlike ,hakespeare-s other ;nglish histories, it foc ses almost excl sively on the protagonist. %oreover, no other play in the ,hakespeare canon ses a choric fig re so extensively. 7Henry 89 is the last of ,hakespeare-s chronicle histories, an! critics have characteri1e! it as the most morally am"ig o s as well. :p ntil a"o t 19<=, commentary on the play was sharply !ivi!e! "etween those who em"race! the heroic interpretation artic late! "y the (hor s an! those who rea! 7Henry 89 as a ca stic satire exposing the hypocrisy an! cr elty of military a!vent rers. 7Henry 89 is centrally concerne! with the / estion of whether the invasion of &rance is 6 stifie!, " t it also !eals with another important iss e of law an! 6 stice> Henry-s possession of the crown that his father s rpe!. ?arl 0. )enters!orf 219<@3 maintains that the !ynastic str ggle "etween the ho ses of Aork an! #ancaster is at the heart of the ,o thampton conspiracy, which Henry exposes in $ct II, scene i. 4he critic points o t that the principal conspirator, the earl of (am"ri!ge, is marrie! to the !a ghter of ;!m n! %ortimerBthe "rother of +ichar! II an! +ichar!-s appointe! heir. th s (am"ri!ge-s infant son wo l! "e in the !irect line of royal s ccession if %ortimer ha! "ecome king instea! of Henry I8. )enters!orf asserts that placing %ortimer-s gran!son on the throne is the real reason for the conspiracy. Cavi! ,cott ?astan 2198D3 !eclares that 7Henry 89 !irectly challenges the 4 !or version of history an! !ynastic s ccession "y exposing the fallacy of Henry-s n/ estioning ass mption of the 6 stice of the &rench war. Henry is so s re of the legitimacy of the invasion, ?astan remarks, that he "r shes asi!e all s ggestions of moral or legal am"ig itiesBraise!, for example, "y the

aristocratic conspirators an! "y the commoners )illiams an! 'ates. moreover, he r thlessly con!emns what he sees as the nlawf l resistance of the citi1ens of Harfle r. 4he most thoro ghly ncritical view of the 6 stice of the &rench campaign is provi!e! "y the (hor s in his prolog es an! epilog e. In!ee!, the role of the (hor s in 7Henry 89 , an! its implications for the play as a whole, have "een the s "6ect of a growing n m"er of commentators, most all of whom re6ect the notion a!vance! "y earlier scholars that these prolog es were written "y someone other than ,hakespeare or that they were not originally part of the play. 4here is no similar nanimity, however, regar!ing the f nction of the (hor s-s speeches. $nthony ,. 'rennan 219<93 conten!s that the (hor s, who hol!s an nwavering "elief in the no"ility of war, represents an extreme position. 'rennan points o t that the (hor s-s sentiments are reg larlyBan! ironicallyB n!erc t "y the scenes which imme!iately follow his prolog es an! which show what war looks like from the viewpoint of the common sol!iers an! the low*life characters from ;astcheap. ,imilarly, #awrence Canson 2198E3 s ggests that the (hor s exists to provi!e 5a sense of perspective5 an! to !emonstrate that an overly in! lgent assessment of the king is mistaken. In contrast to 'rennan, however, Canson arg es that the !ramatic action complicates the (hor s-s preparation rather than contra!icting it, an! th s we "ecome aware of Henry-s h man weakness well as his greatness. $lso recommen!ing a "alance! view of the king, $nthony Hammon! 2198<3 maintains that the contra!iction "etween the (hor s-s !escriptions of what will "e shown on the stage an! what we act ally see is !esigne! to n!erscore the ! ality that r ns thro gho t the play. $ !ichotomy is " ilt into ,hakespeare-s characteri1ation of Henry, Hammon! asserts, an! while the play incorporates the (hor s-s attit !e towar! the king an! specific !ramatic events, it also !irectly challenges that conception. GFnter )alch 219883 relates the role of the (hor s to the play-s representation of political !octrine, maintaining that the (hor s is profo n!ly involve! in creating a national i!eology. 4he nrelia"ility of his information is central to the !rama, )alch arg es, for this exposes the ill sory nat re of national myths an! legen!s, an! !emonstrates how they can "e se! as instr ments of power. %any late twentieth*cent ry commentators have foc se! on the relation "etween power an! i!eology in 7Henry 89, often from the perspectives of new historicism or c lt ral materialism. Gonathan Collimore an! $lan ,infiel! 2198=3 conten! that the play explores Henry-s attempt to

esta"lish himself as the sole repository of political power. Henry-s goal, they !eclare, is the complete s ppression of all challenges to his a thority, an! he ses the i!eological concept of national nity to achieve this. In their 6 !gment, however, the play reveals, thro gh n mero s instances of !issension an! threats of !iso"e!ience, the profo n! anxieties that accompany the imposition of i!eological conformity on a nation comprise! of !iverse personal an! political interests. $lexan!er #eggati 219883 also examines the / estion of how 7Henry 89 portrays national nity, asserting that it shows the concept to "e a 5patriotic fantasy.5 He points o t that (anter" ry-s refashioning of the tra!itional fa"le of the "ees- commonwealth, in which all factions of an i!eal state work together harmonio sly, is 6 xtapose! to the !epiction of !isgr ntle! sol!iers, scheming prelates, an! &rance in r ins. $ !iences an! rea!ers m st work o t these contra!ictions for themselves, #eggatt recommen!s, for the play offers "oth points of view an! provi!es no simple resol tion of this !iscrepancy. ,imilarly, Graham 'ra!shaw 2199E3 recently interprets 7Henry 89 as promoting ncertainty rather than a single, reass ring response to its representation of history. He conten!s that altho gh the (hor s tries to control o r reaction, an! while Henry a!roitly offers 6 stification after the fact for the co rse he has alrea!y em"arke! on, the play-s s "versive connotations wo l! not have "een misse! "y those who first saw the play in performance. #ike #eggatt an! others, 'ra!shaw ca tions that single*min!e! 6 !gments of Henry, the 6 stice of his war, an! the integrity of the play-s portrayal of history are nwise an! re! ctive. 7Henry 89 in HIInvisi"le ' lletsII is seen as another attempt at s "verting the a thority of the king * this time showing even more explicitly his hypocrisy, his sing the i!ea of Go! for 6 stifying his am"itions. Go! is se! here to give !ivine sanction to the glorio s 5pro6ect5 of con/ ering another co ntry, killing its sol!iers, raping its women, looting an! pl n!ering. Go! is responsi"le for mass sla ghter of the &rench, says Hal, who is now king. we the ;nglish have the 5glow of !ivine approval over the entire enterprise5. Aet Hal himself !oes not "elieve in this, an! ,hakespeare is "ol! eno gh to show it. 4he king acknowle!ges, as Green"latt says, 5these expiatory rit als an! even -contrite tears- are worthless5. 4herefore 5Hal threatens to exec te anyone who !enies Go! f ll cre!it for ;nglish victory5* well aware, at the same time, that he is lying, that he is a fra !. $pparently, this as well is not s "versive eno gh, an! the only reason Green"latt provi!es is that 5to!ay 2J3 at a time when it no longer seems to matter very m ch, it

is not at all clear that Henry 8 can "e s ccessf lly performe! as s "versive5. )hat he has in min! is the weakening of religio s faith that c lminate! at the en! of the D0th cent ry. ' t the arg ment is simply not goo! eno gh, since any mo!ern version of Henry 8 might replace the insignificant wor! Go! with more awe*inspiring wor!s, like !emocracy, or h man rights.

'i"liography> Green"latt, ,tephen, -Invisi"le ' llets-, Literary Theory: An Anthology, e!., G. +ivkin an! %. +yan, 'lackwell, 1998 Green"latt, ,tephen, +enaissance ,elf*&ashioning> &rom %ore to Shakespeare, :niversity of (hicago 0ress, (hicago, 1980 ,hakespeare, )illiam, Five Great Tragedies, )or!sworth ;!itions #imite!