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.

One of the most interesting critical comments that I've read recently comes from the book that I mentioned in last Tuesday's post: Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory 1945-2000, edited by Russ McDonald, and more specifically the essay entitled Rabbits, Ducks and Henry V by Norman Rabkin. The puzzling title is entwined with its premise, as it refers to a piece of op-art which "we can see as either a rabbit or a duck". Rabkin argues that the two possible interpretations of the character of Henry V (either as a great leader and king or as a vicious war criminal) are almost impossible to mentally compromise, and that this was done intentionally. Here is how he puts it: "I am going to argue that in Henry V Shakespeare creates a work whose ultimate power is precisely the fact that it points in two opposite directions, virtually daring us to choose one of the two opposed interpretations it requires of us." This strikes me as being both revolutionary and accurate, and it brings me back to a point I argued in an earlier post - that Shakespeare's primary interest was not the characters in his plays, but rather the people in the audience. The spectator (or reader) is the true protagonist of a Shakespeare play. She or he is the only real battleground.