Prologue

Summary

In a good Poem, whether it be Epique, or Dramatique; as also in Sonnets, Epigrams, and other Pieces, both Judgement and Fancy are required: But the Fancy must be more eminent; because they please for the Extravagancy; but ought not to displease by Indiscretion.

In a good History, the Judgement must be eminent; because the goodnesse consisteth, in the Method, in the Truth, and in the Choyse of the actions that are most profitable to be known. Fancy has no place, but onely in adorning the stile.

—Hobbes, Leviathan, chap. 8, paras. 4–5

The plays of Shakespeare's so-called second tetralogy, unlike those of the first, constitute a coherent whole in more than an historical sense. For despite their respective titles, they are unified by their underlying focus on a single individual of unique historical stature, whose entire political career is shaped by a problem fundamental to both politics and philosophy. The man and his problem is the spine supporting the limbs upon which the flesh of these four dramas is overlain. All the machinations, the battles, all the interwoven actions and reactions of all the actors, both high and low, derive a special significance from how they bear on the life story of England's most famous warrior king.

Each play does have its own integrity, of course, lent by its own set of themes and issues, and they are treated as such in the chapters which follow. Still, the fact remains that the tetralogy as a whole is mainly about the making of this almost legendary figure, as acknowledged in the coining of Henriad to identify collectively this quartet of dramas. Accordingly, how each play contributes to that end is my primary focus. As Shakespeare tells it, the life story of Henry V is shaped by the problem which from early youth haunted him: that of establishing his own legitimacy as King of England—a challenge which points beyond itself to the problem of political legitimacy per se. It arises in the context of a regime riddled with corruption, and ruled by a monarch who displays tyrannical inclinations, partly if not wholly because he presumes to rule by ‘divine right’.