DOCSLIB.ORG

The Complete Works of William Shakespeare in Twenty Volumes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare in Twenty Volumes CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF THE HART MEMORIAL LIBRARY DATE DUE BARCODINGRCO PROBLEM Charge Manually CORNELL UNIVERSITY LI8RARY 08 462 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924071108462 THE COMPLETE WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE IN TWENTY VOLUMES KING HENRY VI— Part I KING HENRY VI— Paet II VOLUME IX The annotations at the foot of the page are intended to explain difficult phrases or allusions. Single words, which are no longer in common use, appear only in the glossary, which is printed in last volume. The numbering of the lines follows that of the Cambridge Edition, the text of which is used in this edition. COPVRIQHT 1907, BY THE UNIV6B9ITY PRESS THE COMPLETE WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WITH ANNOTATIONS AND A GENERAL INTRODUCTION BY SIDNEY LEE VOLUME IX KING HENRY VI — Part I WITH A SPECIAL INTRODUCTION BY ADOLPHCS WILLIAM WAED AND AN ORIGINAL FRONTISPIECE BY BYAM SHAW NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS Copyright, 1907 By The University Press Entered at Stationers' Hall, London All Rights Reserved CONTENTS Pagb Introduction to King Henry VI, Part I, by Adolphus William Ward .... ix Text of the Play 1 INTRODUCTION HE precise dates at which Shake- speare first came before the world as a player and as a playwright are alike unknown ; nor has it ever been pretended that either of these dates must necessarily be associated with the production of" Henry VI," or of any Part of the trilogy, upon the stage. Strictly speaking, no biographical fact concerning him is known to us between May, 1583, when his eldest child was born, and February, 1585 (n.s.), when her twin brother and sister were christened at Stratford, — and March 3, 1592 (n.s.), when a play which is at least possibly identifiable with the " First Part of Henry VI " was performed in London. Between these dates, as is well known, erudite and imaginative conjecture have combined to crowd a variety of experiences as multitudinous as are the houses of London town itself; but we are all agreed that before the summer of this year he had been for some time connected with the London theatre. For it was about this date [ix] THE FIRST PART OF KING HENRY VI that either as an actor or, more probably, as a playwright, he was vituperated by the unhappy Greene — in what may surely be called the unhappiest moment of the writer's literary life. Thus with " Henry VI " — except on the absolutely untenable supposition that the " Shake- scene" of the " Groatsworth of Wit " is a different person- age from Shakespeare — the master-spirit of the English drama first enters into some sort of ascertained connexion with it or with its ordinary vehicle, the English stage. For, whether or not he had a hand in " Titus Andronicus " — a question which the present is not the occasion for discuss- ing—no play of that name was performed till 1594, though a " Titus and Vespacia " was acted some years earlier. This fact, then, gives to "Henry VI," which Shake- speare's friends and associates, the editors of the First Folio, chose to include as a whole within the canon of his plays, a priority of place in the whole series from the point of view of date, and thereby an interest of its kind unique. In the second place, I do not think that, whatever critical judgment may be formed of " Henry VI " in its entirety, any doubt can be entertained but that, taken as a whole, this trilogy in its dramatic and in its general literary qualities stands very much nearer to the rest of the great series of Shakespearean Histories, among which a place was assigned to it by Hemynge and Condell, than to the Chronicle Histories, from whose species it cannot be re- garded as having altogether emerged. Together with a very few other plays — among which we may safely class Marlowe's "Troublesome Raigne and Lamentable Death of Edward II" (1590-1), Peele's more or less contemporary but more rudimentary " Famous Chronicle of Edward I," and (in part) Greene's "Scottish Historie of James IV,slaine [x] " INTRODUCTION at Flodden," together with the very remarkable anony- mous " Sir Thomas More," probably quite as early in date as the preceding — " Henry VI " may thus be regarded as marking the transition from unfree beginnings, and from the Chronicle History pure and simple, to one of the most characteristic as well as most memorable of the developments of the English drama. For our national historical drama, as its conception unfolded itself in Shakespeare, corresponds in its historical continuity to that of our national life at large, which may safely be described as the feature more than any other differenti- ating it from the life of other nations. Thus " Henry VI has a position hardly less notable in the general his- tory of the English drama than in the series of Shake- speare's plays. Finally, I think that, whatever may be held to be the relations to each other of the several Parts of " Henry VI," and their comparative dramatic and literary merits, it is undeniable that the whole work is conceived on a grand scale and in a grand way, and that, though it cannot be set down as a masterpiece, its theme "contains matter, and not common things." Without entering at present into the details of his criticism, I cannot refrain at the outset of this Introduction from citing some words of the Nestor of English Shakespeare 1 scholars, Dr. Furnivall, because it is above all things desirable that in discussing these plays the great possi- bilities of their argument, which the execution has at least gone some way to meet, should not be as it were by accident overlooked. "There are few things," writes Dr. Furnivall, as usual putting his own ideas in his own way, " I regret more in Shakespeare's career l " New Shakspere Society's Transactions," 1876, p. 284. THE FIRST PART OF KING HENRY VI than this : that he did n't turn back to the superb subject of these Henry VI plays and write a fresh set on it. The reproduction of the Lancelot and Guinevere love in Suffolk and Queen Margaret, though with a bitterer end, gives a strange interest in the drama. And, when the thread is woven with the others of Margaret's ambition, cutting down Gloster, the sole support of her and her husband's throne ; the working out of her punishment for this, through the quarrels of the nobles and the insidious Richard's schemes; when one sees the Queen of 'peerless feature . valiant courage and undaunted spirit ' robbd of her love, her kingdom and her child ; the current of her being changed ; the woman turned into a demon and a fury ; then, dethroned, uttering the dread curse of Fate and Vengeance on the crafty cynical Richard in the pride of his success, and then witnessing the fulfilment of that curse on him defiant, fearing Death as little as he feard Sin . you have a combination of personal and political motives which, had Shake- speare gone back to it later in life, would have given the world the finest historical dramas it will ever own." In order that he may see light through the quite inevi- tably lengthy and not less inevitably complicated discus- sion which must be inflicted on the reader, as to the still-vext subject of " Henry VI " and of the originals on which the larger portion of this trilogy were beyond dis- pute founded, the dates of the early editions of the several plays in question should in the first instance be remembered. The " First Part of Henry VI," then, was so far as is known first printed in the First Folio (Hemynge and Condell's), where it appeared in conjunction with the Second and Third Parts in 1623. Now, as already indicated, Hens- " lowe mentions in his " Diary a play which he calls, first " Henery the VI " and then " Hary VI," as performed at the Rose, on March 3, 1592 (n.s.), and as repeated at least fifteen times. And, in his " Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication," Nashe refers to a play in which " brave Talbot (the terror of the French)" was, "after he had lain [xiij INTRODUCTION two hundred years in his tomb," made to " triumph again on the stage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears often thousand spectators at least (at several times)." On this twofold hint Mr. Fleay 1 says, without further hesitation: "On March 3, 1592, Lord Strange's players acted ' Henry VI,' a re-fashioning by Shakespeare of an old Queen's play, into which he introduced the Talbot " scenes alluded to by Nashe ; adding as a conjecture that in 1599 this play passed to the Lord Chamberlain's servants, whence the reference, of which more anon, in the Epilogue to " Henry V." But we are not able to go quite so fast. It is quite true that Nashe's description, so far as Talbot is " concerned, fits the First Part of Henry VI " ; and also that the popularity ascribed to the play by Nashe fits the play mentioned by Henslowe as having been performed by Lord Strange's men and having had so good a run. Yet, especially as the success of a play at one house was quite as likely in the Elizabethan age as it is in our own to lead to the production at another house of a second play on the same theme, the " First Part of Henry VI " was very likely neither the play mentioned by Henslowe nor that to which reference is made by Nashe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Henry Iv, Parts One &
    HENRY IV, PARTS ONE & TWO by William Shakespeare Taken together, Shakespeare's major history plays cover the 30-year War of the Roses, a struggle between two great families, descended from King Edward III, for the throne of England. The division begins in “Richard II,” when that king, of the House of York, is deposed by Henry Bolingbroke of the House of Lancaster, who will become Henry IV. The two Henry IV plays take us through this king's reign, ending with the coronation of his ne'er-do-well son, Prince Hal, as Henry V. In subsequent plays, we follow the fortunes of these two families as first one, then the other, assumes the throne, culminating in “Richard III,” which ends with the victory of Henry VII, who ends the War of the Roses by combining both royal lines into the House of Tudor and ruthlessly killing off all claimants to the throne. What gives the Henry IV plays their great appeal is the presence of a fat, rascally knight named Falstaff, with whom Prince Hal spends his youth. Falstaff is one of Shakespeare's most memorable characters and his comedy tends to dominate the action. He was so popular with audiences that Shakespeare had to kill him off in “Henry V,” lest he detract from the heroism of young King Henry V. “Henry IV, Part One,” deals with a rebellion against King Henry by his former allies. The subplot concerns the idle life led by the heir to the throne, Prince Hal, who spends his time with London's riffraff, even going so far as to join them in robbery.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry IV, Part 2, Continues the Story of Henry IV, Part I
    Folger Shakespeare Library https://shakespeare.folger.edu/ Get even more from the Folger You can get your own copy of this text to keep. Purchase a full copy to get the text, plus explanatory notes, illustrations, and more. Buy a copy Contents From the Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library Front Textual Introduction Matter Synopsis Characters in the Play Induction Scene 1 ACT 1 Scene 2 Scene 3 Scene 1 Scene 2 ACT 2 Scene 3 Scene 4 Scene 1 ACT 3 Scene 2 Scene 1 ACT 4 Scene 2 Scene 3 Scene 1 Scene 2 ACT 5 Scene 3 Scene 4 Scene 5 Epilogue From the Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library It is hard to imagine a world without Shakespeare. Since their composition four hundred years ago, Shakespeare’s plays and poems have traveled the globe, inviting those who see and read his works to make them their own. Readers of the New Folger Editions are part of this ongoing process of “taking up Shakespeare,” finding our own thoughts and feelings in language that strikes us as old or unusual and, for that very reason, new. We still struggle to keep up with a writer who could think a mile a minute, whose words paint pictures that shift like clouds. These expertly edited texts are presented to the public as a resource for study, artistic adaptation, and enjoyment. By making the classic texts of the New Folger Editions available in electronic form as The Folger Shakespeare (formerly Folger Digital Texts), we place a trusted resource in the hands of anyone who wants them.
    [Show full text]
  • Soldiers' Wives in the Hundred Years
    Soldiers’ Wives in the Hundred Years War Anne Curry In January 2006 the Daily Telegraph reported the sale in New York of an eight- eenth-century gold box, embossed with the arms of the city, which had been presented along with the freedom of the city to Thomas Gage, commander-in- chief of the British Army in North America in 1773.1 At that point, the report continued, Gage was ‘deeply in love with his American wife’ – Margaret Kemble from New Brunswick – who had given him eleven children.2 Two years later, Gage was a ‘broken man … estranged from Margaret for ever after she put the land of her birth before her husband and handed his military secrets to Paul Revere’. Gage had planned to send 800 men to Concord with the aim of seizing two revolutionary leaders, Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and destroying the weapons which they had been building up at Lexington and Concord. But, being forewarned, Revere famously rode to advise them of Gage’s plan. The rest, as they say, is history. Gage immediately suspected his wife since, other than his fellow officer, she was the only person he had told of his plans. He banished her to England, and although he also returned home six months later, the couple never spoke again. Margaret Gage later ‘confided to a close friend that her feelings were those spoken by Lady Blanche in Shakespeare’s King John’: The sun’s overcast with blood; fair day adieu! Which is the side that I must go withal? I am with both … Whoever wins, on that side shall I lose.3 1 Daily Telegraph, Friday 20 January 2006, p.
    [Show full text]
  • From Crecy to Agincourt and Beyond the Hundred Years War (1337 –1453)
    2/28/2019 From Crecy to Agincourt and Beyond The Hundred Years War (1337 –1453) Battles of the Hundred Years War Name Date Winner Battle of Cadsand 1337 E Naval Battle of Sluys 24 June, 1340 E Battle of Auberoche 1345 E Siege of Calais 1346 E Battle of Crecy 26 August 1346 E Battle of Saint‐Pol‐de‐Leon 1346 E Battle of La Roche‐Derrien 1347 E Battle of Saintes 1351 E Battle of Ardres 1351 F Battle of Mauron 1352 Anglo‐Breton Battle of Poitiers Sept.19 1356 E Battle of Auray Sept. 29, 1364 E Battle of Navarrette (Najera) 3 April, 1367 E Battle of Montiel 1369 F Battle of Chiset(Chizai) 1373 F Siege of Harfleur 18 Aug. ‐22 Sept. 1415 E Battle of Agincourt 25 October, 1415 E Siege of Rouen July 1418 – Jan. 1419 E Battle of Bauge March 21, 1421 F/S Battle of Cravant July 31, 1423 E Battle of Verneuil (Vernuil) August 17, 1423 E Battle of St. James March 6, 1426 E Battle of Jargeau June 11‐12, 1429 E Battle of Beaugency 16‐17 June, 1429 F Siege of Orleans 1428‐1429 F Battle of Patay 18 June 1429 F Siege of Compiegne 1430 F Battle of Gerbevoy 1435 F Battle of Formigny April 15, 1450 F Battle of Castillon July 17, 1453 F 1 2/28/2019 The Hundred Years War (1337‐1453) The basic cause of the Hundred Years War was the dynastic quarrel that began with the conquest of England by William of Normandy which resulted in a state that existed on both sides of the English Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Joan Timeline Compiled by Richard Rossi
    1 Saint Joan Timeline Compiled by Richard Rossi A certain understanding of the historical background to Saint Joan is necessary to fully understand the various intricacies of the play. As an ocean of ink has been spilled by historians on Joan herself, I shall not delve too deeply into her history, keeping closely to what is relevant to the script. My dates, which may not necessarily match those that Shaw used, are the historically accepted dates; where there is discrepancy, I have notated. In some cases, I have also notated which characters refer to certain events in the timeline. There is a great deal of history attached to this script; the Hundred Years War was neither clean nor simple, and Joan was, as The Inquisitor says, “...crushed between these mighty forces, the Church and the Law.” 1st Century: Saint Peter founds the Catholic Church of Rome. (Warwick mentions St. Peter) 622: Establishment of Mohammad’s political and religious authority in Medina. (Cauchon mentions the prophet) 1215: The Waldensian movement, founded by Peter Waldo around 1170, is declared heretical at the Fourth Lateran Council. The movement had previously been declared heretical in 1184 at the Synod of Verona, and in 1211 80+ Waldensians were burned at the stake at Strausbourg. This was one of the earliest proto-Protestant groups and was very nearly destroyed. 1230’s: Establishment of the Papal Inquisition, which would later prosecute the trial against Joan of Arc. (Mentioned by Warwick. This is the same inquisition mentioned throughout the script) 1328: Charles IV of France dies without a male heir, ending the Capetian Dynasty and raising some very serious questions regarding the right of inheritance.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Joan Script Glossary Compiled by Richard Rossi Italicized Definitions Have an Accompanying Picture Scene I
    1 Saint Joan Script Glossary Compiled by Richard Rossi Italicized definitions have an accompanying picture Scene I Meuse River: During the time of the play, this roughly North/South river indicated the border between the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France. Approximately the red line, with Lorraine as the tan county at the bottom right, and Champagne on the left. Lorraine: The Duchy of Upper Lorraine, ruled by the dynasty of Gérard de Châtenois, was de facto independent from the 10th to 15th centuries. Intersected by the Meuse and Moselle rivers, it had a great deal of trade and information passing through, which made it an enticing target. In 1431, a mere two years after the start of Saint Joan, the Duchy was ceded to the House of Anjou, specifically René I, from whom it was incorporated into France in 1480. Champagne: Under the rule of the Counts of Champagne until 1284, the marriage of Philip the Fair and Joan I of Navarre brought it under the royal domain. During the High Middle Ages (1000-1300), the County of Champagne was one of the most powerful fiefs in France, home to the largest financial and commercial markets in Western Europe. 2 Vaucouleurs Castle: The main defense of “the town that armed Joan of Arc” and the residence of Robert de Baudricourt. The unruined structures, including the gothic chapel on the right, were rebuilt during the 18th century. Robert de Baudricourt: (1400-1454) minor French nobility, the son of the chamberlain of the Duke of Bar (Liebald de Baudricourt).
    [Show full text]
  • Map of France Joan of Arc
    Map of France Joan of Arc Compiegne Rouen Rheims NORMANDY Paris Vaucouleurs Patay Seine River Blois Orleans Domremy Tours Checy Olivet Jargeau Chinon LoireRiver Poiters RhoneRiver Meung-sur-Loire Blois Orleans Checy Tours Jargeau Beaugency Olivet Timeline forJoan of Arc May 15, 1428 First appeared before the Governor of Vaucouleurs asking to be sent to the Dauphin. (Book 1, Chapter 7) Feb 14, 1429 Tells the Governor his delay caused a French defeat that day before news could get to them. That was the day of the Battle of Herrings. (Chapter 2) Feb 23, 1429 The governor sends Joan with a band of 25 men in arms to Chinon to meet with the dau- phin. (Chapter 2) March 6, 1429 Meets Charles VII for the first time. (This date is not in this book, took place in chapter 6) March 1429 Three week hearing by theologians at Poiters. Chapter 8 April 29, 1429 Arrives at Orelans, sends the army to come back on the north side. Chapter 13 April 30, 1429 Orders English out of Orleans. Chapter 14 May 4, 1429 1st Battle at Orleans, French capture the Loop Bastille. Chapter 18, date not given in this book May 8, 1429 Siege of Orleans is lifted after only four days of battle. Chapter 22 June 12, 1429 Battle of Jargeau. Chapter 27 June 15, 1429 Battle of Meung-sur-Loire Chapter 29 - date not given in book June 17, 1429 Battle of Beaugency. Chapter 29 June 18, 1429 Battle of Patay. Chapter 30 July 17, 1429 Coronation of Charles VII at Reims.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Widows of a Certain
    Working Papers in the Humanities Shakespeare’s Widows of a Certain Age: Celibacy and Economics Dorothea Faith Kehler San Diego State University Abstract Often more honoured in the breach than the observance, the prevailing discourse of early modern England encouraged widows to live as celibates, to epitomize piety, and to devote themselves to safeguarding their children’s interests. Of these injunctions, celibacy was crucial. Among Shakespeare’s elderly widows, all but Mistress Quickly remain single, a condition most vehemently prescribed by Catholic writers, who reluctantly exempted only the youngest widows— prejudged as concupiscent by virtue of their nubility and gender. In print, if not practice, Catholics and Protestants alike appeared to regard celibacy as the only suitable state for older widows. My paper briefly considers five widows of a certain age: Mistress Quickly, who violates the injunction when, between Henry IV, Part 2 and Henry V, she weds Ancient Pistol; Paulina of The Winter’s Tale who, by the end of Act V, has not formally accepted Camillo as a substitute for Antigonus; and the celibate, child-focused widows of Coriolanus and All’s Well That Ends Well, ‘widows indeed’. Whether these characters remarry or remain celibate depends, to a significant extent, on their financial situations, those with greater economic needs remarrying if they can. Although neglected as a category, widows are prominent in Shakespeare’s plays, appearing in every genre. Including ‘seeming widows’—wives uncertain of their marital status like
    [Show full text]
  • Jeanne D'arc: Morale, Spiritual Authority, and Gunpowder
    Jeanne d'Arc: Morale, Spiritual Authority, and Gunpowder Emilie Roberts Page 1 of 41 Jeanne d'Arc: Morale, Spiritual Authority, and Gunpowder Few people in history have had more written about them than Jeanne d'Arc.1 This young woman has been claimed by French Nationalists, the Catholic church, and radical feminists alike; she has been portrayed variously as saint, heretic, schizophrenic, war heroine, virgin, and tart.2 To some she was the saviour of France, to others a inconsequential player in the larger picture of the Hundred Years War. Whatever the evidence for each of these interpretations, the first and most important question that needs to be asked is what was it that Jeanne d'Arc did to become such a controversial and important figure in medieval history? The answer is the one thing that most writers have chosen to ignore: she was a successful military commander. Her success at relieving the siege of Orléans and the crushing defeat of the English army at Patay is mentioned in passing in most of the historical narratives. As well, a few words are spared to describe the march to Reims during which town after town was taken by Jeanne and her army. Oddly though, very few authors take the time to discuss how she achieved these victories and, in particular, they fail to recognize her use of gunpowder weaponry in the majority of her battles. Whether she was divinely inspired, a brilliant strategist, or simply extremely lucky, during her year- long campaign against the English she was actively, forcefully, and decisively involved in planning and executing her battles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interpretive Power of Context, Or Why Henry V’S “St
    The Interpretive Power of Context, or Why Henry V’s “St. Crispin’s Day” Monologue is Bullshit TYE LANDELS In his short book On Bullshit (2005), Harry Frankfurt develops an analytic theory of bullshit. Bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt, has two definitive conditions. First, its claims are neither deliberatively true nor false. As Frankfurt notes, “[the bullshitter’s] intention is neither to report the truth nor conceal it” (55). Second, its claims attempt to “convey a certain impression” (18) of the speaker. My paper will dis- cuss the ways in which Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit informs an understanding of Henry’s “St. Crispin’s Day” monologue in Shake- speare’s Henry V. I will argue that Henry’s language in this mono- logue satisfies Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit insofar as it conveys an intentional impression of Henry that is neither deliberatively honest nor false. Moreover, I will argue that the extra-dramatic au- dience’s omnispective1 knowledge of Henry’s internal motivations and self-consciousness and the play’s subplot provides neces- sary context within which to identify this monologue as bullshit. Henry’s “St. Crispin’s Day” monologue is a clear act of bullshit, albeit a successful one. In this monologue, Henry notorious- ly appeals to abstract notions of “honor” (Shakespeare 4.3.28) and brotherhood (4.3.60). He constructs two hypothetical scenarios: in the first, he states that, if any soldier “hath no stomach for this fight, / Let him depart; his passport shall be made / And crowns for convoy put into his purse” (4.3.35-37).
    [Show full text]
  • 9 King Henry V Ap 98
    Play: King Henry V Author: Shakespeare Text used: New Cambridge Library ref: Key: enter from within enter from without exit inwards Exit outwards Act door Entering door Space-time indication Commentary /sc IN characters OUT and notes I.o Chorus CHOR. O for a muse of fire... (1) Entrance from the high status door? Chorus CHOR. Admit me Chorus to this history...(32) I.i Canterbury, CANT. My lord, I’ll tell you, that They enter together deep in Ely self bill is urged...(1) conversation. Canterbury, CANT. The French ambassador Despite the reference to going ‘in’ Ely upon that instant Craved audi- to the court to hear the embassy, ence, and the hour I think is this is a loop scene, a prelude to come To give him hearing. Is it their entry from outwards into the four o’clock? court of the next scene. ELY. It is. CANT. Then go we in, to know his embassy...(91-5) I.ii King, KING. Where is my gracious lord The court is brought ‘out’ onto the Gloucester, of Canterbury? stage (throne set, etc.) prior to the Bedford, EXETER. Not here in presence. audience with the ambassador. Clarence, KING. Send for him, good uncle. Westmorland, WEST. Shall we call in th’am- Exeter etc. bassador, my liege? (1-3) Canterbury, CANT. God and his angels guard They now return to the stage, Ely your sacred throne...(7) coming in to the court. Attendant KING. Call in the messengers sent from the Dauphin. (221) Ambassador, KING. ...Now are we well prepared Attendant returns from outwards etc.
    [Show full text]
  • English Commoners and Communities on the Early Modern Stage
    ENGLISH COMMONERS AND COMMUNITIES ON THE EARLY MODERN STAGE Nora L. Corrigan A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English and Comparative Literature Chapel Hill 2006 Approved by: Alan Dessen Ritchie Kendall Megan Matchinske Jessica Wolfe Mary Floyd-Wilson © 2007 Nora L. Corrigan ii ABSTRACT NORA L. CORRIGAN: English Commoners and Communities on the Early Modern Stage (Under the direction of Alan Dessen) This dissertation explores the treatment of the English common people, their communities, and their values in a variety of early modern dramatic texts, including Shakespeare’s Henry IV plays, Henry V, and The Merry Wives of Windsor; Thomas Heywood’s Edward IV and If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody plays, Thomas Dekker’s The Shoemaker’s Holiday, Rowley, Dekker and Ford’s The Witch of Edmonton and the anonymous Arden of Feversham, Woodstock, and Sir Thomas More. When modern-day critics write about social relations in this period, their usual range of concerns includes hierarchy and power. Personal relationships among relative equals are a neglected subject in this field, yet they were central to most Elizabethans’ lives and world-views. Thus, my reading of these plays focuses on horizontal rather than hierarchical social relationships; the key words are not sovereignty, rule, obedience but neighborliness, brotherhood, fellowship, community. My central thesis is that these texts associate commoners with a specific set of values – mutual help, conviviality, conciliation – which grow out of the social structures of village and urban communities to become the ideological cornerstone of the English commons.
    [Show full text]