SHAKESPEARE AND CONCEPTS OF HISTORY: THE ENGLISH HISTORY PLAY AND SHAKESPEARE’S FIRST TETRALOGY Nicole Davall A thesis submitted in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cardiff University 2014 DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ……………………… STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… Summary of Thesis Divided into three large chapters, this thesis explores sixteenth-century concepts of history, considers how those concepts appear in Elizabethan history plays on English history, and finally looks at Shakespeare’s first tetralogy of history plays. The aim of the thesis is to consider in some detail the wider context of historical and dramatic traditions in Tudor England to gain a better appreciation of how they influenced possible readings of Shakespeare’s early history plays. Chapter One looks at how medieval approaches were modified in the fifteenth century. St. Augustine’s allegorical method of biblical exegesis made it possible to interpret history from inside the historical moment by allowing historically specific incidents to stand for trans-historical truths. However, the sixteenth- century chronicle tradition shows an increasing awareness of the difficulties of interpreting history. Chapter Two looks at early English history plays outside of the Shakespearean canon. History plays borrowed the conventions of comedy, tragedy and the morality play to provide frameworks for interpretation. Nevertheless, early histories such as Kynge Johan, Edmund Ironside, Famous Victories, Edward III, The True Tragedy, and The Troublesome Reign did not fit comfortably within established dramatic modes, leading to history’s gradual recognition as a separate genre. Chapter Three looks at the contribution Shakespeare’s plays made to the developing genre. The un-unified dramatic structure of the Henry VI plays denies the audience a stable framework within which to interpret events. In Richard III, a clear tragic framework appears, but is undermined by a strong thread of irony that runs through the play. History appears in the tetralogy as a repetitive cycle of violence perpetuated by characters’ attempts to memorialise the past while failing to learn from it. The crisis presented by history is the necessity of acting on partial information, while the promise of fuller understanding is projected into an unknowable future. Acknowledgements Special thanks go to: My supervisor, Martin Coyle, whose guidance and advice has been invaluable. Rhian Rattray, for her help and patience with the submission process. My parents, Karen and Peter Davall, whose unfailing support, both moral and financial, have made this thesis possible. And to all of the friends who cheered me on to finish these last few months. Contents: Introduction 1 Politics and Historicisms Old and New 2 Shakespeare and the Elizabethan History Play 13 Chapter One: Historiography 25 Part One: Reading History 29 History and the Bible: The ‘Good’ Book 29 Thomas More and William Tyndale: Church or Scripture? 38 Boethius and Machiavelli: Providence and Free Will 47 Part Two: Writing History 58 Histories and Chronicles 58 Polydore Vergil 62 Hall’s Chronicle 68 Richard Grafton and John Stow 71 Holinshed’s Chronicles 76 England Re-Formed 82 Chapter Two: Dramaturgy 88 History and the Morality Play 98 History and Comedy 113 History and Tragedy 127 History: The ‘Mongrel’ Genre 142 Chapter Three: Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy 145 The Structure of the First Tetralogy 146 The Henry VI plays 157 Comedy and the Commonwealth: Representing the Lower Classes 157 A Record of Loss: Tragedy and the Historical Record 166 The Will of God: Providence and Morality-play Conventions 178 The Bloody Rose: Law and the ‘Rights’ of York and Lancaster 189 The Use of History 197 Richard III 203 Conclusion 217 Bibliography 227 1 Introduction Shakespeare’s ‘first tetralogy’ of history plays (1-3 Henry VI and Richard III) have traditionally received less attention than the plays of the second tetralogy (Richard II, 1 and 2 Henry IV, and Henry V). Nevertheless, the first tetralogy is in some ways a more interesting set of plays than their better known siblings. For one thing, controversies over the dating and authorship of the first tetralogy have intriguing implications for our understanding of the early development of the history-play genre as a whole. For another, postmodern trends in modern historical theory and the idea of petits récits as a way of challenging the overarching metanarrative of traditional ‘History’ have allowed for a greater appreciation of the effect of the episodic and un-unified artistic structure of the Henry VI plays.1 Futhermore, recent high-profile productions of Shakespeare’s history plays from the BBC, the RSC, and Shakespeare’s Globe suggest that interest in Shakespeare’s histories is growing even outside of academia.2 All these things make the plays of the first tetralogy ripe for a fruitful re-evaluation. In particular, this thesis seeks to examine Shakespeare’s first tetralogy in relation to earlier forms historical writing, looking at the ideas of influential figures writing on history in order to gain a sense of the wider context of Shakespeare’s plays. I will also consider the outlook on history presented in the first tetralogy and its influence on the genre of the history play. 1 For more on the ways in which petits récits challenge traditional metanarratives, see Catherine Belsey, ‘Making histories then and now: Shakespeare from Richard II to Henry V’, in The Uses of History: Marxism, Postmodernism and the Renaissance, ed. by Francis Barker, Peter Hulme and Margaret Iverson (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991), pp. 24-46. 2 The BBC’s Hollow Crown series includes Richard II, dir. by Rupert Goold, 1 and 2 Henry IV, dir. by Richard Eyre, and Henry V, dir. by Thea Sharrock (BBC, 2012), and the plays of the first tetralogy are set to be released in 2016. Shakespeare’s Globe also performed 1-3 Henry VI, dir. Nick Bagnall (Shakespeare’s Globe, 2013) at the Globe, as well as one-off performances at a number of battlefield sites (Towton, St. Albans, Wakefield and Barnet, see <http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/theatre/whats-on/globe-theatre-on- tour/henry-vi/battlefield-performances>, [accessed on 05/10/2013]). Finally, the RSC is also in the process of staging Shakespeare’s second tetralogy (as separate productions rather than a ‘cycle’), beginning with last year’s production of Richard II starring David Tennant, dir. Gregory Doran (RSC, 2013), and current production of 1 Henry IV, dir. Gregory Doran (RSC, 2014) in Stratford. 2 It has been claimed that, in his history plays, Shakespeare engages with the historiographical issues of his day.3 Thus, in Chapter One (‘Historiography’), I consider the historiographical context into which Shakespeare’s first history plays emerged. The Reformation and the influence of humanist bibliographical practices dramatically changed attitudes towards history over the course of the sixteenth century. While a more secular outlook began to be available, it was still underwritten by a culturally Christian outlook. Chapter Two (‘Dramaturgy’) looks at how drama took on the subject of history, and considers the question of what distinguishes the ‘history play’ from other dramatic genres. To do this I look at plays currently outside of the Shakespearean canon in an attempt to get a wider view of the shape of the history-play genre. Such a view is necessary for evaluating the impact of Shakespeare’s contribution to the genre.4 Finally, in Chapter Three I turn to the plays of Shakespeare’s first tetralogy and the various kinds of history they present. In the rest of this introduction, however, I would like to turn to some of the key critical debates concerning historiography and historicism, as well as the relationship between Shakespeare’s history plays and the genre as a whole. Politics and Historicisms Old and New In a 2004 essay, ‘Political Thought and the Theatre, 1580-1630’, Annabel Patterson suggests that recent criticism has only just begun to accept the existence of a relationship between plays and politics in early modern drama. She writes: 3 See Robert Ornstein, A Kingdom for a Stage: The Achievement of Shakespeare’s History Plays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), and Paola Pugliatti, Shakespeare the Historian (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996). 4 Although the plays I have looked at in Chapter Two are for the most part currently outside of the Shakespearean canon, his involvement has been claimed from time to time in relation to almost all of them. Scott McMillin and Sally-Beth MacLean have speculated about Shakespeare’s involvement with the Queen’s Men company in the late 1580s, and the possibility that he may therefore have had involvement with the plays The Famous Victories of Henry V, The Troublesome Reign of King John and The True Tragedy of Richard III (see ‘Shakespeare a Queen’s Man’, in The Queen’s Men and their Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp.