This England

"This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea, . . .
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England"

I was first introduced to these lines from Shakespeare's "Richard II" sometime during my freshman year in high school, probably as part of the television adaption of the history plays called "An Age of Kings." They have aptly been referred to as the most famous words ever written about England and they certainly had their impact on me, creating an almost mystical type view of the home of my maternal ancestors.

Ancestors is probably a key word in this context because, while I am of English descent, I am a citizen of the United States and proud of that fact. Yet it was this early introduction to the history plays that gave me an abiding interest in the land of the Winders, the Proctors and all the others who made up those families.

I have had cause to think again of "This England" while I have been reading Jonathan Bate's'"The Genius of Shakespeare." Written by one of England's leading Shakespearean scholars, this book is highly recommended but hard to come by in the United States, even in major academic libraries. I was able to get a copy over the Internet and the positive recommendations were well founded. Bate has a lot of interesting insights into Shakespeare such as how his plays are in some ways a response to the work of Christopher Marlowe.

However, to me the best chapter in the book, by far, is the one entitled "The National Poet." In this chapter Bate sets out to refute claims that Shakespeare is solely the voice and champion of the establishment by proving how Shakespeare's vision of "This England" was a broad one encompassing the land and its people. He does this in large measure by stressing the important roles of every day people in the two parts of "Henry IV" and "Henry V." A prime example of this is Michael Williams who is presumptuous enough to debate the disguised Henry V on the eve of Agincourt. The fact that Williams and his two comrades have both first and last names is evidence to some of their importance to Shakespeare.

Bate then goes on to write about a World War I era writer Edward Thomas who wrote and collected writings with this broader view of "This England." He brilliantly concludes the chapter by showing how Thomas may have gotten this view from his reading of Shakespeare and how it influenced his attitude as a British army officer. This is, as I say, brilliantly thought out and written, yet it surprises me that Bate (who knows far more about Shakespeare than I do) doesn't see something very similar within "Henry V" itself.

Like many critics, Bate takes the different scenes in Act IV individually, without looking at or commenting on how they might be interpreted as a whole - a gradual progression. First, the disguised Henry's encounter with the three soldiers suggesting they aren't much interested in his cause and don't believe his claim that he won't be ransomed. This leads to Henry's bitter soliloquy on ceremony and his desperate prayer that God will "steel his soldier's hearts." But then when the scene switches to the morning of Agincourt, Henry delivers the stirring "band of brothers" speech that rallies his heavily outnumbered army to defeat their French enemies.

Looked at as a whole, it seems to me that Shakespeare is showing how the young king gradually learns how to provide the leadership necessary in this crisis, a crisis largely of his own making. The "band of brothers" speech is full of images of that larger view of "This England" which I believe Henry has gradually come to claim as his own. Some critics who recognize this possibility claim that the speech is only contrived rhetoric that has no meaning after the battle, I disagree, but that is something for another day.

One thing that anyone reading Shakespeare's history plays has to remember is there are certain historical facts that he couldn't change. No matter how much critics and others would like Henry not to invade France and claim the French crown, the fact is that he did and Shakespeare cannot change that. I believe the main issue for Shakespeare is how did Henry lead his army to victory against such great odds. The author chooses not to use material available to him in his sources that gives credit to the king's tactics and/or his personal bravery. In addition unlike almost every other history play, the nobility is almost written out of the play to allow more voice for both the king and the common people. "Henry V" is indeed evidence of Shakespeare's broader definition of "This England" and, I believe intended to show how one king used that definition to his and his country's advantage.