The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0767 Wednesday, 28 April 1999.
[1] From: Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999 09:27:11 -0500
Subj: RE: SHK 10.0758 Re: Henry
[2] From: Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999 10:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Henry's Strategem
[3] From: Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0758 Re: Henry
[4] From: Michael Ullyot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1999
Subj: Troilus and the Henriad
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter T. Hadorn <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999 09:27:11 -0500
Subject: 10.0758 Re: Henry
Comment: RE: SHK 10.0758 Re: Henry
Geralyn Horton writes: "A scholar in full flight falling into ordinary
slip-of-the-tongue error is a sobering sight. You do mean Hector, don't
you? Killed by Achilles thugs?" You are right, of course. I apologize
for the sloppy error. Thank you for the correction.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999 10:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Henry's Strategem
In H5, Act IV, sc i, Pistol tells Harry he will knock Fluellen's hat off
his head. Harry replies to see that he does not wear a dagger in his
hat that day. In my opinion, the dagger, the symbol of treachery, is
meant as a foil, to the glove, the symbol of honor, which causes so much
conflict in Act IV, sc viii. In my opinion, both of these symbols
connect with the leek of Act V, sc i, which as the symbol of Welsh
nationalism, connects with the factionalism shown by Pistol in Act IV,
sc i in giving Harry the figo, or Spanish fig.
Yours in work,
Dana
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 10.0758 Re: Henry
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0758 Re: Henry
Sean wrote:
>Henry elsewhere intimates that he
>doesn't have much treasure that, in fact, his whole
>army is ragged.
The ragged "appearance" of Henry's army goes to the point I have made
previously of "tromperies".
Lit's may be forgiven weakness in the rules of evidence. Harry may have
had a significant motive for "intimating" poverty and appearing "ragged"
with neither true in fact.
The first time that Mountjoy comes for ransom, Harry tells him the only
ransom the French will have is his "trunk", a clearly a double entendre
between his body and his baggage.
In my opinion, Henry's army was poor and the great fear of the French
army was that the Henry's cavalry would flee the field leaving in their
midst an army of common beggars with no means home.
Yours in the work,
Dana
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Ullyot <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1999
Subject: Troilus and the Henriad
Peter Hadorn describes Troilus as "the true sequel to [the] Henriad"
because it presents a period of classical mythology Shakespeare might
have, thanks to Geoffrey of Monmouth adapted by Tudor historiographers,
seen as the origins of British history. I wonder:
(a) Why a sequel? "Prequel" would seem a better description, its events
being antecedent.
(b) What do list-readers think of the idea (posited, I think, by Kenneth
Muir) that Troilus represents the beginning of a planned or anticipated
larger series of plays on the Trojan War, into which this play would be
inset? It would thus resemble the young Shakespeare's 2 Henry 6 before
its story was 'completed' by framing plays. Fascinating idea, especially
when you consider that even the epic presents only a fragment of a
larger "total action" (in Frye's words) such as the entire Trojan
conflict. With Shakespeare beginning and ending his play in medias res,
it gives rise to speculation about a larger, unrealised project-very
Virgilian, that.
Michael Ullyot
