Further to yesterday's post on Gary Taylor's introduction to the Oxford Henry V, one of his most compelling arguments (which happens to fit into my theory regarding this play being Shakespeare's epic) is the description by which he shows the large-scale organization of the work. I'll give you the quote in full, which I believe is accurate, but it is from my notes, so I apologize in advance for any discrepancy. Taylor writes that the play "advances dialectically: no sooner is a unity established than we are made aware of what that unity excludes, until that too can be contained. After the divisions of the first two scenes, Henry and his court are by the end of act one united in their common purpose - and immediately we are shown Eastcheap brawling. After Southampton, Henry can leave behind an undivided England - and we are reminded, through Falstaff, and those who have loved him, of an entire world Henry has excluded. So the process continues until, after the achievement of Agincourt, in the consummation of the dialect, Burgundy insists that the harmony must include France as well as England."

My contention is that Shakespeare was writing an epic not only for the people of England, but for all people who want to live in a civilized and just manner. He used the very symbol of patriotism and empire-building to subvert those ideals, and to show us a way of thinking that we must aspire to if we are to have a peaceful future. The play shows us that differences of opinion (as are written into the role of the protagonist and the fact that he is shown having to accept views opposed to his own, even those of common soldiers such as Williams) are not a nuisance, they are a necessity. Only in tyrannies are opposing views silenced, and only in tyrannies is no thought given to the effects our actions might have on those not, at first glance, on our side.

The most concise and accurate way of defining "epic" is to consider it as a literary work designed to teach a people its own traditions. In the Shakespeare canon, the play that best suits this definition is Henry V. And over the next couple of posts, I'm going to try to explain my reasons for thinking this.

First of all, in the Oxford edition, edited by Gary Taylor, it's explained that there is no evidence that Henry V was a popular success in 1599 (a date for its completion that can be given with relative certainty, due to the fact that the still-in-progress Irish expedition of the Earl of Essex is mentioned in the Chorus to act five - the only reference to what we would call a current event in Shakespeare). And among the many possible reasons for this is the fact that the play is built on the dialectic concept, and thus the character of Henry V is much more complex than the rally-round-the-flag figure that they might have been expecting. This is still the case today, in fact, and the essay (which I've mentioned before) that comes the closest to delineating Shakespeare's method in the play is "Rabbits, Ducks and Henry V" by Norman Rabkin, which posits the idea that the author meant to show two equally compelling views of Henry (patriotic hero or Machiavellian war criminal) and force the audience member to choose between them. This would have thwarted expectations, and still does, I think it's fair to say. And the entire play is built on variations of this approach. More on all of this tomorrow.

Further to yesterday's post regarding editors, I must mention Gary Taylor's splendid job in editing and commenting on Henry V for the 1998 Oxford edition. I highly recommend it for anyone who would like to gain insight into this astonishing play. Taylor's contention that Shakespeare's interest in the character may have been a result of his identifying with the experiences of a historical figure who had to choose between his perceived mission and the perception of his humanity by others is compelling. And while there can be no comparison made between the accomplishments of the two (Shakespeare's being infinitely more contributive and important), there are perhaps parallels that could be drawn regarding their philosophical and psychological development. And the thought that Shakespeare may have seen another point of comparison in his theatre company vis a vis Henry's happy few is a fascinating one. It's one of many in Taylor's excellent edition.

The Oxford edition of Henry V features an excellent introduction by its editor, Gary Taylor. Among its many interesting points is a discussion of the significance of the play's minor characters, and particularly the Eastcheap crew left behind by Falstaff (who dies offstage during the play): Mistress Quickly, Bardolph, Pistol, the Boy (a.k.a Falstaff's page) and Corporal Nym. One of Taylor's really interesting contentions is that each of them have specific verbal and behavioural characteristics that have inspired many twentieth century playwrights, more specifically Pistol's mixture of high language and low deeds influencing Steven Berkoff's play, East (1975) and the fact that "Nym's whole style anticipates to a remarkable degree the repetitiveness, understatement, incoherence, and menace now regarded as the unique preserve of the plays of Harold Pinter." Since I'm one of those who has always advised young people interested in writing to try to learn everything they can from Shakespeare, reading of this was an affirming moment.