Shakespeare's Complete Works Reading Challenge: Fourth Day of Henry VI

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? I've had a hankering to read and half-liveblog all of Shakespeare's plays (again)... in chronological order, onward from Henry VI, Part 1: written by Shakespeare (b. 1564) in 1591. I'm using an old Complete Works of Shakespeare edition from the Clarendon Press.

See also: Previous Henry VI blog posts:

• Act I Scene 1: Henry V's funeral

• Scenes 2, 3 & 4: French dauphin meets Joan of Arc, Duke of Gloucester clashes with Bishop of Winchester, the Earl of Salisbury is killed in fighting in Orléans

•  Scenes 5 & 6: Joan of Arc fights Lord Talbot, French celebrate lifting of siege on Orléans

***

2:30 p.m.
ACT II.
Scene I.

"Joan of Arc in the protocol
of the parliament of Paris (1429).
Drawing by Clément de Fauquembergue.
French National Archives"
[Wikimedia Commons]

We meet our cast of characters in Orléans again.

Reading the words of a French sergeant, one is tempted to wish that modern soldiery were as eloquent:

Sirs, take your places and be vigilant.
If any noise or soldier you perceive
Near to the walls, by some apparent sign
Let us have knowledge at the court of guard.

The French sentries are not pleased to be out in the weather.

Thus are poor servitors—
When others sleep upon their quiet beds—
Constrain'd to watch in darkness, rain, and cold.

But then English forces with Lord Talbot and the Dukes of Bedford and of Burgundy arrive at the walls, giving purpose to their vigil.

One would suppose that the English would be attacking at night to offer an element of surprise, so silence would be enforced. But Shakespeare writes in the stage directions of "their drums beating a dead march." I checked on Wiktionary: this means a "mournful," slow march, not a march with muffled drums.

The English lord and dukes pause to chat. The Duke of Bedford calling King Charles VII of France a "coward" for enlisting "witches" to help — since he allegedly cannot win in battle any other way. Talbot, who had also condemned the French leaders' "art and baleful sorcery," is determined to avenge the death of the Earl of Salisbury.

"God is our fortress," insists Talbot,

in whose conquering name
Let us resolve to scale their flinty bulwarks.

(I don't think attacking one fortress in the name of another fortress makes very much sense, but that might be why I'm not a playwright. As far as I can tell, Orléans didn't have any flint buildings, either – a modern rearrangement of stones from an old Fort des Tourelles at Orléans remains, evidence of materials used in Henry VI's time. But let's read "flinty" as a figure of speech.)

Meanwhile, Shakespeare's French sentries haven't heard or seen a thing. It's only when the English "scale the walls," and break out into war cries, that a French sentry calls the alarm.

But the French, "Having all day carous'd and banqueted", are ill-prepared to defend themselves.

The Bastard of Orleans and the Dukes of Alençon and Angers run onto the stage from different directions, "in their shirts" and "half ready, and half unready."

Shortly Charles VII and Joan of Arc join them. From what I can understand, 'leaping over the walls' means that they are already seeking safety away from the field of battle, not attempting any defense.

Now the French leaders squabble.

Charles VII turns against Joan of Arc.

Joan whines that she cannot be awake 24/7: "Sleeping or waking must I still prevail[...]?". She blames the watch for not keeping a better lookout. (But if the Virgin Mary is appearing to her to tell her to save France, surely it is Joan of Arc's responsibility to do more than what is humanly probable?)

France's dukes, when Charles begins to blame the Duke of Alençon instead, point out that their own parts of the fortifications were adequately defended.

***

I think that the play treats Joan of Arc as a charlatan.

But I almost wonder if a cheeky, young Shakespeare was criticizing Elizabeth I, although I have found no scholarly evidence of this.

Before the Spanish Armada reached England, in her speech at Tilbury, Queen Elizabeth I had placed herself in a military role when she said,

I know I have the body but of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

She appealed to religion just like Joan of Arc:

we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people

But her influence, like Joan of Arc's, seemed ambiguously helpful.

The Spanish Armada was expensive. The English military, even though the defeat of the Spanish Armada was treated as a huge victory across England, faced disaster:

"The day after her Tilbury speech, Elizabeth ordered the army disbanded, the camp at Tilbury dissolved five days later, then discharged the navy, sending them home without pay." (Wikipedia)

Many soldiers died of sickness, too. The Queen had explicitly promised pay in the Tilbury speech. But the Wikipedia article suggests that her reputation survived. Besides, it was William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who had advised in his role as Lord High Treasurer that "‘by death, by discharging of sick men, and such like . . . there may be spared something in the general pay [...].’" (Machiavelli had nothing on him!) Elizabeth's main participation in this betrayal had, to put it generously, been to ignore protests against Burghley's ideas by men like the Lord High Admiral, Charles Howard.

Then, in the English counter-Armada that was launched in 1589, over 11,000 men were killed on the English side. The Spanish had lost about as many during their Armada. Even Philip II came out of it looking like a comparative naval genius. (And even now, this embarrassing little episode doesn't seem to enter many discussions of British history.)

It's tempting to wonder if a failed English attack on Lisbon inspired Shakespeare when he wrote of the better-fated one on Orléans?

Again, I'm not sure if Shakespeare did mean to satirize Elizabeth I. But a cursory read of another Wikipedia article reveals that Elizabeth was hailed as an "Astraea," which is the same mythological character that Joan of Arc was compared to in Act I. Merely circumstantial evidence? A cliché of the Elizabethan Age that would have been widely used anyway?

***

Returning to Scene I: Joan of Arc and the French nobility at Orléans finally stop arguing. She suggests repairing France's defenses.

But it is too late. A moment later,

Enter an English Soldier, crying, 'A Talbot! A Talbot!' They fly, leaving their clothes behind.

(I certainly hope that the dukes, king, and Joan of Arc were holding extra clothing and armour over their arms, and not that the stage direction means that they scampered off in nude abandon. Either way, the English soldier happily picks up the spoils.)