THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
NAMANGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH FACULTY
ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT
COURSE PAPER
The description of truth and issue in
Shakespeare’s histories
Written by the student of the 2nd course, 312 group
Juraboyeva Diyora
Scientific superviser:
Dadaboyeva lazokat
NAMANGAN 2021
CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………….....…....3
Chapter I. The lifestyle and works of William Shakespeare
1.1.William Shakespeare biography.............................................................5
1.2.William Shakespeare as an English dramatist, poet and actor .................7
Chapter II. William Shakespeare’s histories as the greatest literature of all
time
2.1.Characteristics of Shakespeare’s history plays……………………………….18
2.2. The description of truth and issue in Shakespeare's histories……………….21
Conclusion………………………………………………......................................31
The list of used literature…………………………………………………….....34
Introduction
Our President Shavkat Mirziyoyev said : ,, Every time I communicate with
young people, you inspire me, fill my heart with joy. I know very well that each of
2
you is eager to serve our Motherland and people. I value you immensely as the
greatest wealth, priceless treasure of Uzbekistan”.
“Whatever reforms we carry out in our country, first of all, we rely on young people
like you, on your energy and determination. As you all know, today we set ourselves
big goals. We began to lay the foundations for the Third Renaissance in Uzbekistan.
We consider the support of the family, preschool, school and higher education,
institutions of science and culture as the most important basis for the future
Renaissance. Therefore, we are carrying out fundamental reforms in these spheres. I
am sure that our selfless and patriotic youth, whom you represent, will take an
active part and make a worthy contribution to the historical process of creating a
new foundation for the development of our country”.
Undoubtedly, as the best examples for our Prezident’s speech mentioned above
nowadays there are many opportunities for the youth of Uzbekistan to show their
full capacity in any field. Using these opportunities wisely, I am also trying to learn
more languages, especially English and to do research on my course paper in my
speciality.
The given course paper is dedicated to the study of one of the best representatives
of English literature William Shakespeare’s works , particularly his history plays.
The course paper mostly focuses on and discusses how much Shakespeare’s
histories are historically accurate and what kind of issues were described in them.
The aim of this course paper analyzes what makes Shakespeare history plays
according to this general aim there put forward the following particular tasks:
1. to define sources of Shakespeare’s history plays;
2. to describe common features of Shakespeare histories;
3. to analyze whether Shakespeare histories were accurate;
4. to study the significance of histories in English literature.
The theoretical significance of this course paper is that, in recent years the
role of literature as a basic component and source of authentic texts of the language
curriculum rather than an ultimate aim of English instruction has been gaining
3
momentum. Many teachers consider the use of literature in language teaching as an
interesting and worthy concern(Sage 1987:1). Therefore the theoretical position
can be used in scientific works besides, that they may be used delivering lectures
on English literature. The practical value of the course paper is that, the practical
results and conclusion can be used in seminars on English literature.
The structure of this course paper is as follows: Introduction, main part,
conclusion and bibliography.
Introduction deals with the description of the structure of a course paper.
The first paragraph deals with William Shakespeare short biography.
The second paragraph deals with Shakespeare’s works.
In the third paragraph we discuss about characteristics of Shakespeare history
plays.
In the forth paragraph we analyze the description of truth and issue in Shakespeare
histories.
Introduction establishes the purpose, the tasks, novelty, the methods used in
the investigation, practical and theoretical significance of the work and explains
the reasons of choosing the theme for studying.
4
Chapter I. The lifestyle and works of William Shakespeare
1.1.William Shakespeare biography
Studying English literature opens up a world of inspiration and
creativity, while also developing skills that are essential for today's global
environment. It is a chance to discover how literature makes sense of the
world through stories, poems, novels and plays. It is also a chance to
sharpen your own ability to write, read, analyze and persuade.
As we know, English literature and its representatives are always focus of the
world literature. There is no one who knows any English writer or poet and at least
their works. Some of the name of English representatives have already become
well-known as our national Uzbek literature representatives. One of them is
undoubtedly , William Shakespeare.
William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor. He
was born on 26 April 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon. His father was a
successful local businessman and his mother was the daughter of a
landowner. He is often called England's national poet and nicknamed the
Bard of Avo.
Records survive relating to William Shakespeare’s family that offer an
understanding of the context of Shakespeare's early life and the lives of his family
members. John Shakespeare married Mary Arden, and together they had eight
children. John and Mary lost two daughters as infants, so William became their
eldest child. John Shakespeare worked as a glove-maker, but he also became an
important figure in the town of Stratford by fulfilling civic positions. His elevated
status meant that he was even more likely to have sent his children, including
William, to the local grammar school.
William Shakespeare would have lived with his family in their house on
Henley Street until he turned eighteen. When he was eighteen, Shakespeare
married Anne Hathaway, who was twenty-six. She was eight years older than
him.It was a rushed marriage because Anne was already pregnant at the time of the
5
ceremony. Together they had three children. Their first daughter, Susanna, was
born
six
months
after
the
wedding
and
was
later
followed
by
twins Hamnet and Judith. Hamnet died when he was just 11 years old.
Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway at the age of 18. She was eight years
older. After his marriage information about his life became very rare. But he is
thought to have spent most of his time in London writing and performing in his
plays. Between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor,
writer, and part-owner of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men,
later known as the King's Men.
Shakespeare’s success in the London theatres made him considerably
wealthy, and by 1597 he was able to purchase New Place, the largest house in the
borough of Stratford-upon-Avon. Although his professional career was spent in
London, he maintained close links with his native town.
Recent archaeological evidence discovered on the site of Shakespeare’s New
Place shows that Shakespeare was only ever an intermittent lodger in London. This
suggests he divided his time between Stratford and London (a two or three-day
commute). In his later years, he may have spent more time in Stratford-upon-Avon
than scholars previously thought.
Whatever the answer, by 1592 Shakespeare had begun working as an actor,
penned several plays and spent enough time in London to write about To the
dismay of his biographers, Shakespeare disappears from the historical record
between 1585, when his twins’ baptism was recorded, and 1592, when the
playwright Robert Greene denounced him in a pamphlet as an “upstart crow”
(evidence that he had already made a name for himself on the London stage). What
did the newly married father and future literary icon do during those seven “lost”
years? Historians have speculated that he worked as a schoolteacher, studied law,
traveled across continental Europe or joined an acting troupe that was passing
6
through Stratford. According to one 17th-century account, he fled his hometown
after poaching deer from a local politician’s estate.1
its geography, culture and diverse personalities with great authority. Even his
earliest works evince knowledge of European affairs and foreign countries,
familiarity with the royal court and general erudition that might seem unattainable
to a young man raised in the provinces by parents who were probably illiterate. For
this reason, some theorists have suggested that one or several authors wishing to
conceal their true identity used the person of William Shakespeare as a front.
(Most scholars and literary historians dismiss this hypothesis, although many
suspect Shakespeare sometimes collaborated with other playwrights.)
On his father's death in 1601, William Shakespeare inherited the old family home
in Henley Street part of which was then leased to tenants. Further property
investments in Stratford followed, including the purchase of 107 acres of land in
1602.
Shakespeare died in Stratford-upon-Avon on 23 April 1616 at the age of 52. He is
buried in the sanctuary of the parish church, Holy Trinity. Shakespeare left the
bulk of his great estate in his will to his elder daughter, Susanna.
1.2.William Shakespeare as an English dramatist, poet and actor.
As we know, William Shakespeare was not only famous for as a playwright,
but also as a poet and skillful actor. During his lifetime 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three
long narrative poems and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship.
No original manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays are known to exist today. It is
actually thanks to a group of actors from Shakespeare's company that we have
about half of the plays at all. They collected them for publication after Shakespeare
died, preserving the plays. These writings were brought together in what is known
as the First Folio ('Folio' refers to the size of the paper used). It contained 36 of his
plays, but none of his poetry.
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_history
7
Shakespeare’s legacy is as rich and diverse as his work; his plays have
spawned countless adaptations across multiple genres and cultures. His plays have
had an enduring presence on stage and film. His writings have been compiled in
various iterations of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, which include
all of his plays, sonnets, and other poems. William Shakespeare continues to be
one of the most important literary figures of the English language.
Shakespeare’s plays are divided into three genres: comedies, tragedies and
histories. We will discuss them one by one.
We don't know exactly when Shakespeare started writing plays, but they were
probably being performed in London by 1592, and he's likely to have written his
final plays just a couple of years before his death in 1616.
Shakespeare's plays portray recognisable people in situations that we can all relate
to - including love, marriage, death, mourning, guilt, the need to make difficult
choices, separation, reunion and reconciliation. They do so with great humanity,
tolerance, and wisdom. They help us to understand what it is to be human, and to
cope with the problems of being so.
The list of Comedies included Measure for Measure and The Merchant of
Venice, plays that modern audiences and readers have not found particularly
‘comic’. Also included were two late plays, The Tempest and The Winter’s Tale,
that critics often now classify as ‘Romances’. If we ask ourselves what these four
plays have in common with those such as As You Like It or Twelfth Night, which
we are used to calling ‘comedies’, the answer gives us a clue to the meaning of
‘comedy’ for many of Shakespeare’s educated contemporaries. All of them end in
marriage (or at least betrothal)
In Shakespearean comedies much that is funny arises from the
misconceptions of lovers. In Much Ado about Nothing the friends of Benedick,
whom we have seen mocking Beatrice and scorning love, arrange for him to
overhear them talking about how desperately Beatrice in fact loves him. The trick
is enjoyably justified when he next meets Beatrice and determinedly interprets her
8
rudeness as concealed affection. Yet the trick takes us further. Once Beatrice has
been deceived by her friends in similar fashion, these two characters, who both
once disdained the follies of courtship, are on the path to love and marriage. All
this deception would not be amusing if we could not feel confident that it will
produce a happy resolution In the play’s sub-plot, the deception of Claudio by Don
John indicates how a deceived lover might, in another kind of play, be on his way
to creating a tragedy. Interwoven with the plot of Benedick and Beatrice’s love
story is the drama of so-called ‘love’ (Claudio for Hero) turned into murderous
hate. However satisfying the former courtship, it is shadowed by the vengefulness
of the untrusting Claudio.
For the most part, Shakespeare’s comedies rely on benign misunderstanding
and deception. They therefore put a premium on dramatic irony, where we know
better than the perplexed lovers. An outstanding example is A Midsummer Night’s
Dream, where we understand the magic of the love potion, mistakenly applied by
Puck to Lysander’s eyes, and can relish not only the love talk he spouts to Helena,
but her befuddlement. When Puck, in an effort to remedy his mistake, squeezes the
juice onto Demetrius’s eyes and he, waking to see Helena, also pours forth
professions of love for her, we hear how easily and eloquently men can think they
love one woman or another. Hermia, who thought that Lysander loved her, is
furiously jealous while Helena is convinced that there is a conspiracy to deceive
her. We laugh at their perplexity because we know that the magic that produced it
will eventually resolve it and ensure a happy ending. The lovers will return from
the forest, that place of confusion and transgression, to the institution of marriage.
Comedy was traditionally a ‘lower’ genre than tragedy or history, and so these
comedies by Shakespeare’s contemporaries justified themselves by their satirical
ambitions. Satire was a higher genre than other kinds of comedy, commended by
classical authors as morally improving. City comedies had a moral purpose: they
mocked current follies and vices. Shakespeare was little interested in topical satire.
Yet there is some evidence that the rules and conventions governing comedy were
9
loose in Shakespeare’s day. The title pages of the various quarto editions of
Shakespeare’s plays indicate that generic categories were not hard and fast. The
quarto edition of Love’s Labour’s Lost (1598) announces it as ‘A Pleasant
Conceited Comedy’ and the quarto Taming of the Shrew declares it to be a ‘wittie
and pleasant comedie’. Yet the title page of The Merchant of Venice (1600) calls it
‘The most excellent Historie of the Merchant of Venice’.
These title pages – almost certainly composed by booksellers rather than the
playwright – tell us about the appeal of word play and contests of wit to
Shakespeare’s first audiences. To us The Taming of the Shrew might seem a play
about sexual politics, but it was probably initially admired for being ‘wittie’: that
is, for featuring two leading characters who were skilled in verbal antagonism.
Verbal humour, often dependent on puns and allusions, is sometimes difficult to
translate on the modern stage, but it was essential to Elizabethan and Jacobean
expectations of comedy. One of Shakespeare’s most popular comic characters, Sir
John Falstaff, arrived on the stage in history plays but was celebrated for his verbal
dexterity. As he announces, ‘I am not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is
in other men’ (Henry IV, Part 2, 1.2.9–10). The quarto edition of Henry IV, Part
1 (1598) was advertised as including ‘the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe’.
Subsequently, the title page of the quarto edition of The Merry Wives of
Windsor (1602) described it as ‘A most pleasant and excellent Conceited comedie,
of Sir John Falstaffe, and the merrie Wives of Windsor’.2
Shakespeare comedies (or rather the plays of Shakespeare that are usually
categorised as comedies) are generally identifiable as plays full of fun, irony and
dazzling wordplay. They also abound in disguises and mistaken identities, with
very convoluted plots that are difficult to follow with very contrived endings.
Any attempt at describing Shakespeare’s comedy plays as a cohesive group can’t
go beyond that superficial outline. The highly contrived endings of most
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_history
10
Shakespeare comedies are the clue to what these plays – all very different – are
about.
Take The Merchant of Venice for example – it has the love and relationship
element. As is often the case, there are two couples. One of the women is disguised
as a man through most of the text – typical of Shakespearean comedy – but the
other is in a very unpleasant situation – a young Jewess seduced away from her
father by a shallow, rather dull young Christian. The play ends with the lovers all
together, as usual, celebrating their love and the way things have turned out well
for their group. That resolution has come about by completely destroying a man’s
life.
The Jew, Shylock is a man who has made a mistake and been forced to pay
dearly for it by losing everything he values, including his religious freedom. It is
almost like two plays – a comic structure with a personal tragedy embedded in it.
The ‘comedy’ is a frame to heighten the effect of the tragic elements, which creates
something very deep and dark.
Twelfth Night is similar – the humiliation of a man the in-group doesn’t like.
As in The Merchant of Venice, his suffering is simply shrugged off in the highly
contrived comic ending.
Not one of Shakespearean comedy, no matter how full of life and love and
laughter and joy, it may be, is without a darkness at its heart. Much Ado About
Nothing , like Antony and Cleopatra (a ‘tragedy’ with a comic structure), is a
miracle of creative writing. Shakespeare seamlessly joins an ancient mythological
love story and a modern invented one, weaving them together into a very funny
drama in which light and dark chase each other around like clouds and sunshine on
a windy day, and the play threatens to fall into an abyss at any moment and
emerges from that danger in a highly contrived ending once again.
Like the ‘tragedies’ Shakespeare comedies defy categorisation. They all
draw our attention to a range of human experience with all its sadness, joy,
11
poignancy, tragedy, comedy, darkness and lightness. Below are all of the plays
generally regarded as Shakespeare comedy plays.

COMEDIES
o
All’s Well That Ends Well
o
As You Like It
o
The Comedy of Errors
o
Love's Labour's Lost
o
Measure for Measure
o
The Merchant of Venice
o
The Merry Wives of Windsor
o
A Midsummer Night's Dream
o
Much Ado About Nothing
o
The Taming of the Shrew
o
The Tempest
o
Twelfth Night
o
The Two Gentlemen of Verona
o
The Winter's Tale
The main reason why Shakespeare enjoyed setting his comedies in almost
paradise-like locations is because, more often than not, things tend to go wrong in
these plays. Mistakes are made, complications are rife, misunderstandings always
arise, so when audiences see how characters living in paradise engage in mishaps
too, it only underscores the comedy. After all, if things can go awry in seemingly
perfect worlds, it becomes strangely comforting to those of us who live in the real
world. This is why many find Shakespeare’s comedies so resonant today, as it
proves that if things seem too good to be true, they probably are.
Common Features of Shakespeare's Tragedies
Shakespeare is perhaps most famous for his tragedies—indeed, many
consider "Hamlet" to be the best play ever written. Other tragedies include "Romeo
12
and Juliet," "Macbeth" and "King Lear," all of which are immediately
recognizable, regularly studied, and frequently performed.
In all, Shakespeare wrote 10 tragedies. However, Shakespeare's plays often
overlap in style and there is debate over which plays should be classified as
tragedy, comedy, and history. For example, "Much Ado About Nothing" is
normally classified as a comedy but follows many of the tragic conventions.

The fatal flaw: Shakespeare’s tragic heroes are all fundamentally flawed. It
is this weakness that ultimately results in their downfall.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall: The Shakespeare tragedies often
focus on the fall of a nobleman. By presenting the audience with a man with
excessive wealth or power, his eventual downfall fall is all the more tragic.

External pressure: Shakespeare’s tragic heroes often fall victim to external
pressures. Fate, evil spirits, and manipulative characters all play a hand in the
hero’s downfall.
In Shakespeare's tragedies, the main protagonist generally has a flaw that leads to
his downfall. There are both internal and external struggles and often a bit of the
supernatural thrown in for good measure (and tension). Often there are passages or
characters that have the job of lightening the mood (comic relief), but the overall
tone of the piece is quite serious.
All of Shakespeare's tragedies contain at least one more of these elements:

A tragic hero

A dichotomy of good and evil

A tragic waste

Hamartia (the hero’s tragic flaw)

Issues of fate or fortune

Greed

Foul revenge

Supernatural elements

Internal and external pressures
13

The paradox of life
The Tragedies
A brief look shows that these 10 classic plays all have common themes.
1) “Antony and Cleopatra”: Antony and Cleopatra’s affair brings about the
downfall of the Egyptian pharaohs and results in Octavius Caesar becoming the
first Roman emperor. Like Romeo and Juliet, miscommunication leads to Anthony
killing himself and Cleopatra later doing the same.
2) “Coriolanus”: A successful Roman general is disliked by the “play Bienz“ of
Rome, and after losing and gaining their trust throughout the play, he is betrayed
and assassinated by Aufidius, a former foe using Coriolanus to try to take over
Rome. Aufidius felt like Coriolanus betrayed him in the end; thus he has
Coriolanus killed.
3) “Hamlet”: Prince Hamlet devotes himself to avenging his father’s murder,
committed by his uncle, Claudius. Hamlet's quest for revenge causes the deaths of
many friends and loved ones, including his own mother. In the end, Hamlet is
lured into a fight to the death with Laertes, brother of Ophelia, and is stabbed by a
poisoned blade. Hamlet is able to kill his attacker, as well as his uncle Claudius,
before dying himself.
4) “Julius Caesar”: Julius Caesar is assassinated by his most trusted friends and
advisers. They claim they fear he is becoming a tyrant, but many believe Cassius
wants to take over. Cassius is able to convince Caesar‘s best friend, Brutus, to be
one of the conspirators in the death of Cesar. Later, Brutus and Cassius lead
opposing armies into battle against each other. Seeing the futility of all they have
done, Cassius and Brutus each order their own men to kill them. Octavius then
orders Brutus be buried honorably, for he was the noblest of all Romans.
5) “King Lear”: King Lear has divided his kingdom and given Goneril and Regan,
two of his three daughters, each a part of the kingdom because the youngest
daughter (Cordelia), previously his favorite, would not sing his praises at the
dividing of the kingdom. Cordelia vanishes and goes to France with her husband,
14
the prince. Lear attempts to get his two oldest daughters to take care of him, but
neither wants anything to do with him. They treat him poorly, leading him to go
mad and wander the moors. Meanwhile, Goneril and Regan plot to overthrow each
other leading to many deaths. In the end, Cordelia returns with an army to save her
father. Goneril poisons and kills Regan and later commits suicide. Cordelia’s army
is defeated and she is put to death. Her father dies of a broken heart after seeing her
dead.
6) “Macbeth”: Due to an ill-timed prophecy from the three witches, Macbeth,
under the guidance of his ambitious wife, kills the king to take the crown for
himself. In his increasing guilt and paranoia, he kills many people he perceives are
against him. He is finally beheaded by Macduff after Macbeth had Macduff’s
entire family assassinated. The “evilness” of Macbeth and the Lady Macbeth‘s
reign comes to a bloody end.
7) “Othello”: Angry that he was overlooked for a promotion, Iago plots to
overthrow Othello by telling lies and getting Othello to cause his own downfall.
Through rumors and paranoia, Othello murders his wife, Desdemona, believing
she has cheated on him. Later, the truth comes out and Othello kills himself in his
grief. Iago is arrested and is ordered to be executed.
8) “Romeo and Juliet”: Two star-crossed lovers, who are destined to be enemies
because of the feud between their two families, fall in love. Many people try to
keep them apart, and several lose their lives. The teens decide to run away together
so that they can wed. To fool her family, Juliet sends a messenger with news of her
“death“ so they will not pursue her and Romeo. Romeo hears the rumor, believing
it to be true, and when he sees Juliet’s “corpse,“ he kills himself. Juliet wakes up
and discovers her lover dead and kills herself to be with him.
9) “Timon of Athens”: Timon is a kind, friendly Athenian nobleman who has
many friends because of his generosity. Unfortunately, that generosity eventually
causes him to go into debt. He asks his friends to help him financially, but they all
refuse. Timons invites his friends over for a banquet where he serves them only
15
water and denounces them; Timons then goes to live in a cave outside of Athens,
where he finds a stash of gold. An Athenian army general, Alcibiades, who has
been banished from Athens for other reasons, finds Timons. Timons offers
Alcibiades gold, which the general uses to bribe the army to march on Athens. A
band of pirates also visits Timons, who offers them gold to attack Athens, which
they do. Timons even sends his faithful servant away and ends up alone.
10) “Titus Andronicus”: After a successful 10-year war campaign, Titus
Andronicus is betrayed by the new emperor, Saturninus, who marries Tamora,
Queen of the Goths, and despises Titus for killing her sons and capturing her.
Titus’s remaining children are framed, murdered, or raped, and Titus is sent into
hiding. He later cooks up a revenge plot in which he kills Tamora’s remaining two
sons and causes the deaths of his daughter, Tamora, Saturninus, and himself. By
the end of the play, only four people remain alive: Lucius (Titus’s only surviving
child), young Lucius (Lucius’s son), Marcus (Titus’s brother), and Aaron the Moor
(Tamora’s former lover). Erin is put to death and Lucius becomes the new emperor
of Rome.
William Shakespeare's name is synonymous with many of the famous lines
he wrote in his plays and prose. Yet his poems are not nearly as recognizable to
many as the characters and famous monologues from his many plays.
In Shakespeare's era (1564-1616), it was not profitable but very fashionable to
write poetry. It also provided credibility to his talent as a writer and helped to
enhance his social standing. It seems writing poetry was something he greatly
enjoyed and did mainly for himself at times when he was not consumed with
writing a play. Because of their more private nature, few poems, particularly long
form poems, have been published. The two longest works that scholars agree were
written by Shakespeare are entitled Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.
Both dedicated to the Honorable Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, who
seems to have acted as a sponsor and encouraging benefactor of Shakespeare's
work
for
a
16
brief
time.
Both of these poems contain dozens of stanzas and comment on the
depravity of unwanted sexual advances, showing themes throughout of guilt, lust,
and moral confusion. In Venus and Adonis, an innocent Adonis must reject the
sexual advances of Venus. Conversely in The Rape of Lucrece, the honorable and
virtuous wife Lucrece is raped a character overcome with lust, Tarquin. The
dedication to Wriothesley is much warmer in the second poem, suggesting a
deepening of their relationship and Shakespeare's appreciation of his support.
A third and shorter narrative poem, A Lover's Complaint, was printed in the first
collection of Shakespeare's sonnets. Most scholars agree now that it was also
written by Shakespeare, though that was contested for some time. The poem tells
the story of a young woman who is driven to misery by a persuasive suitor's
attempts to seduce her. It is not regarded by critics to be his finest work.
Another short poem, The Phoenix and the Turtle, despairs the death of a legendary
phoenix and his faithful turtle dove lover. It speaks to the frailty of love and
commitment
in
a
world
where
only
death
is
certain.
There are 152 short sonnets attributed to Shakespeare. Among them, the most
famous ones are Sonnet 29, Sonnet 71, and Sonnet 55. As a collection, narrative
sequence of his Sonnets speaks to Shakespeare's deep insecurity and jealousy as a
lover, his grief at separation, and his delight in sharing beautiful experiences with
his romantic counterparts. However, few scholars believe that the sequence of the
sonnets accurately depicts the order in which they were written. Because
Shakespeare seemed to write primarily for his own private audience, dating these
short jewels of literature has been next to impossible. Within the sonnets
Shakespeare seems to have two deliberate series: one describing his all consuming
lust for a married woman with a dark complexion (the Dark Lady), and one about
his confused love feelings for a handsome young man (the Fair Youth). This
dichotomy has been widely studied and debated and it remains unclear as to if the
subjects represented real people or two opposing sides to Shakespeare's own
personality.
17
Though some of Shakespeare's poetry was published without his
permission in his lifetime, in texts such as The Passionate Pilgrim, the majority of
the sonnets were published in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe. Before that time, it appears
that Shakespeare would only have shared his poetry with a very close inner-circle
of friends and loved ones. Thorpe's collection was the last of Shakespeare's nondramatic work to be printed before his death. Critics have praised the sonnets as
being profoundly intimate and meditating on the values of love, lust, procreation,
and death. Nowaday, Shakespeare is ranked as all-time most popular English poets
on history, along with Emily Dickinson, Robert Frost, and Walt Whitman.
Chapter II. William Shakespeare’s histories as the greatest literature
of all time
2.1.Characteristics of Shakespeare’s history plays
Just as Shakespeare’s
‘comedies’ have some dark themes and tragic
situations while the ‘tragedies’ have some high comic moments, the Shakespeare
‘history’ plays contain comedy, tragedy and everything in between. All
Shakespeare’s plays are dramas written for the entertainment of the public and
Shakeseare’s intention in writing them was just that – to entertain.
It wasn’t Shakespeare, but Shakespearian scholars, who categorised his plays into
the areas of tragedy, comedy and history Unfortunately, our appreciation of the
plays is often affected by our tendency to look at them in that limited way.
The plays normally referred to as Shakespeare history plays are the ten plays that
cover English history from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries, and the 13991485 period in particular. Each historical play is named after, and focuses on, the
reigning monarch of the period. In chronological order of setting, Shakespeare’s
historical plays are:
1. King John
18
2. Richard II
3. Henry IV Part 1
4. Henry IV Part 2
5. Henry V
6. Henry VI Part 1
7. Henry VI Part 2
8. Henry VI Part III
9. Richard III
10. Henry VIII
The plays dramatise five generations of’ Medieval power struggles. For the most
part, they depict the Hundred Years War with France, from Henry V to Joan of
Arc, and the Wars of the Roses, between York and Lancaster.
We should never forget that they are works of imagination, based very loosely
on historical figures. Shakespeare was a keen reader of history and was always
looking for the dramatic impact of historical characters and events as he read.
Today we tend to think of those historical figures in the way Shakespeare
presented them.
For example, we think of Richard III as an evil man, a kind of psychopath with a
deformed body and a grudge against humanity. Historians can do whatever they
like to set the record straight but Shakespeare’s Richard seems stuck in our culture
as the real Richard III.
Henry V, nee Prince Hal, is, in our minds, the perfect model of kingship
after an education gained by indulgence in a misspent youth, and a perfect human
being, but that is only because that’s the way Shakespeare chose to present him in
the furtherance of the themes he wanted to develop and the dramatic story he
wanted to tell.
In fact, the popular perception of medieval history as seen through the rulers
of the period is pure Shakespeare. We have given ourselves entirely to
Shakespeare’s vision. What would Bolingbroke (Henry IV) mean to us today? We
19
would know nothing of him but because of Shakespeare’s plays, he is an
important, memorable and significant historical figure.
Shakespeare’s history plays are enormously appealing. Not only do they
give insight into the political processes of medieval and renaissance politics but
they also offer a glimpse of life from the top to the very bottom of society – the
royal court, the nobility, tavern life, brothels, beggars, everything. The greatest
English actual and fictional hero, Henry V, and the most notorious fictional
bounder, Falstaff, are seen in several scenes together. Not only that, but those
scenes are among the most entertaining, profound, and memorable in the whole
of English literature. That’s some achievement.
Many of Shakespeare’s plays have historical elements, but only certain plays
are categorized as true Shakespeare histories. Works like "Macbeth" and "Hamlet,"
for example, are historical in setting but are more correctly classified as
Shakespearean tragedies. The same is true for the Roman plays ("Julius Caesar,"
"Antony and Cleopatra," and "Coriolanus"), which all recall historical sources but
are not technically history plays.
Shakespeare pulled inspiration for his plays from a number of sources, but most of
the English history plays are based on Raphael Holinshed's "Chronicles."
Shakespeare was known for borrowing heavily from earlier writers, and he was not
alone in this. Holinshed's works, published in 1577 and 1587, were key references
for Shakespeare and his contemporaries, including Christopher Marlowe.
Common Features of the Shakespeare Histories
The Shakespeare histories share a number of things in common. First, most are set
in times of medieval English history. The Shakespeare histories dramatize
the Hundred Years War with France, giving us the Henry Tetralogy, "Richard II,"
"Richard III," and "King John"—many of which feature the same characters at
different ages.
20
Second, in all his histories, Shakespeare provides social commentary through his
characters and plots. Really, the history plays say more about Shakespeare’s own
time than the medieval society in which they are set.
For example, Shakespeare cast King Henry V as an everyman hero to exploit the
growing sense of patriotism in England. Yet, his depiction of this character is not
necessarily historically accurate. There's not much evidence that Henry V had the
rebellious youth that Shakespeare depicts, but the Bard wrote him that way to
make his desired commentary.3
Despite seeming to focus on the nobility, Shakespeare's history plays often offer a
view of society that cuts right across the class system. They present us with all
kinds of characters, from lowly beggars to members of the monarchy, and it is not
uncommon for characters from both ends of the social strata to play scenes
together. Most memorable is Henry V and Falstaff, who turns up in a number of
the history plays.
Shakespeare wrote 10 histories. While these plays are distinct in subject matter,
they are not in style. Unlike other plays than can be categorized into genres, the
histories all provide an equal measure of tragedy and comedy.
2.2.
THE
DESCRIPTION
OF
TRUTH
AND
ISSUE
IN
SHAKESPEARE'S HISTORIES
While we are analyzing Shakespeare history plays differen question will appear
such as were Shakespeare's Histories accurate? Shakespeare’s history plays are for
many people the defining versions of England’s medieval monarchs, but can
Shakespeare really be trusted? Is Richard III the greatest villain in history or Henry
V the embodiment of the perfect, virtuous king? To find out, we are taking a closer
look at Shakespeare’s sources, why he was writing history plays in the first place
3
Ogburn, Dorothy, and Ogburn, Charlton, This Star of England: William Shakespeare, Man of the Renaissance (New
York, 1952), pp. 709–710
21
and check three of his most famous plays to see if they are more historical fact or
historical fiction.
Not exactly. Even though they were a great inspiration for Shakespeare,
Holinshed's works were not particularly historically accurate; instead, they are
considered mostly fictional works of entertainment. However, this is only part of
the reason why you shouldn't use "Henry VIII" to study for your history test. In
writing the history plays, Shakespeare was not attempting to render an accurate
picture of the past. Rather, he was writing for the entertainment of his theater
audience and therefore molded historical events to suit their interests.
If produced in the modern-day, Shakespeare's (and Holinshed's) writings would
probably be described as "based on historical events" with a disclaimer that they
were edited for dramatic purposes.
Shakespeare was not the only playwright to look to history for inspiration and in
fact history plays were extremely popular across Elizabethan theatre. However,
the Elizabethans had a different view of how to “use” history – rather than learning
about facts and dates in a purely academic sense, history was used as a mirror to
the present as a means of amending behaviour and anticipating future events. As
such, the historical characters in Shakespeare’s plays often have a very strong
sense of their place in history. The history plays, therefore, are not intended as a
realistic representation of the medieval age but a combination of a nostalgic view
of times past intermingled with contemporary concerns.
However, a long-lasting career could not be built purely on simplistic,
throw-away yarns with some last nods to contemporary issues. This was possibly
the best informed theatrical audience in history, with around 15,000 people from a
population in London of around 200,000 going to the theatre each week and about
a third of the city’s population going each month. A company would not, like
today, perform the same play for months on end, but would instead change
performance on a daily basis, introducing some new works and reviving old
favourites. There was an almost constant pressure for new and more challenging
22
material. Shakespeare was part of a generation of playwrights pushing each other
on to write bigger and better things, with the more sophisticated and complex
tragedy Tamburlaine by Christopher Marlowe an early historical blockbuster of the
time.
Shakespeare, then, was by no means writing in isolation with his history
plays but what marks him out as a great playwright is not the choice of stories but
the way that he tells them. His lead characters are not simply two-dimensional
stereotypes used as props for exciting battles and swooning romances; they are
conflicted, they ask themselves questions, they grapple with questions of morality
and philosophy. There is something of the biographer in Shakespeare’s treatment
of the kings that goes beyond a soulless chronicle of events. It would be hard for
any historian to better encapsulate the difficulties of Henry IV than the lamentation
granted him by Shakespeare that “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”.
The first test for Shakespeare and the quality of his history is whether or not he
has done his research, and on this front Shakespeare does surprisingly well. On one
level, Shakespeare is actually rather unoriginal when it comes to his stories as they
are almost always based (in some way) on earlier texts. He did not invent the
witches in Macbeth (these first appeared as “weird sisters” in a history by Andrew
of Wyntoun) nor did he originate the story of Romeo and Juliet (originally a
narrative poem by Arthur Brooke in 1562). Indeed, he was not even the first to
write a popular play about Henry V.
The good news for Shakespeare when it comes to his history plays is that he
drew extensively from chronicles and histories. Primary among his sources was
Raphael Holinshead’s The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (the
second edition, published in 1587), which told the complete story of the three
kingdoms from their origins to the present day. This was actually the work of
multiple authors but it was an important and extremely popular work because such
a comprehensive history had not been published before for the British Isles. As
well as Holinshead, Shakespeare also made use of other histories available at the
23
time such as Polydore Vergil (author of an English history commissioned by Henry
VII) and Edward Hall’s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of
Lancastre and Yorke, covering from 1399 and the death of Henry VIII in 1547.
These histories were far from perfect in terms of accuracy, but they were the best
sources available and Shakespeare did as much as was possible in the 1590s to
research the real history.
Perhaps the more serious charge against the reliability of Shakespeare’s
history is that his work reflects a great deal of Tudor bias. He was not just writing
for the crowds but also for those at court, including Elizabeth I and, after 1603,
James I (VI of Scotland). The history plays are full of references to people and
events at court as well as reflecting a very particular interpretation of recent history
that would not pass muster with modern historians.
One example is the celebrated comic character of Sir John Falstaff, a portly
buffoon who enjoys drinking with Prince Hal (later Henry V) in the Henry
IV plays. Originally, he was called Sir John Oldcastle, a real-life and rather more
serious man who had been friendly with a young Henry V but was a religious
radical ultimately executed for treason. He was also the ancestor of William
Brooke, the current Lord Chamberlain, who objected to his celebrated ancestor
being portrayed as a comic buffoon. Shakespeare clearly wanted a familiar name
and the link to the young Henry but had no interest in accurately depicting the real
man. Indeed, although Shakespeare did change the name from Oldcastle to
Falstaff, he also wrote another play for Falstaff called The Merry Wives of
Windsor in which there is a jealous husband who calls himself Brooke, so it seems
likely that Shakespeare was very deliberately poking fun at the Lord Chamberlain!
More serious is the accusation that he is effectively producing Tudor
propaganda. The Tudors were keen to promote the idea that from the deposition of
Richard II to the defeat of Richard III, England was a country mostly in chaos and
civil war (known as the Wars of the Roses) due to the evils of rebellion and
usurpation against a rightfully anointed king. It was, according to the Tudor view,
24
only with Henry VII’s victory at Bosworth that peace was restored. As an example
of how Shakespeare helped create a false national remembrance of this period, the
phrase “Wars of the Roses” is actually a nineteenth century term based on a scene
in Shakespeare’s Henry VI (Part 1) where the opposing sides pick which rose to
wear as emblems. In reality, the Lancastrians did not wear a red rose during the
conflict but rather Henry VII used it for symbolic purposes to create the Tudor rose
(both white and red) to symbolise national unity. However, is this actually what
Shakespeare was doing? If we are to read each play as being part of a whole then
the message becomes somewhat inconsistent. Henry VI is at times portrayed as a
rather saintly character (which some would contend is due to his status as a
Lancastrian monarch and Tudor ally) and yet in Henry VI Part 2 he is seen as unfit
to rule and the Yorkists come out rather more favourably. H. A. Kelly has argued
that Shakespeare is consistent within the context of each individual play but not
necessarily between different plays (evidenced by the fact that he wrote them out
of chronological order). The history plays are not intended as a serial drama in the
modern sense and Shakespeare is more interested in the troubles and motivations
of the characters in each drama than he is in painting a one-sided narrative of the
whole period.
On a broader level, then, the accuracy of Shakespeare’s history plays is
something of a mixed bag: well-researched and providing a deep, almost
biographical insight into his characters; yet full of contemporary references and
biases that are fundamentally ahistorical. To get a better and more detailed
assessment, it is best to look at specific plays to see how well Shakespeare’s works
stand up against real history.
Richard III – Tudor Propaganda?
For modern audiences, Richard III (1592) is the most controversial of
Shakespeare’s history plays when it comes to historical accuracy. Indeed, its
perceived bias inspired the formation of the Richard III Society, who seek to
rehabilitate Richard’s reputation which they feel has been unfairly maligned by
25
Shakespeare. So are they right? Is Shakespeare guilty of a terrible historical
injustice for the reputation of Richard III, or should the society leave him alone?
In the play (the second longest in Shakespeare’s canon), Richard is described as
a “rudely stamped…deformed, unfinished” hunchback and declares that he
is “determined to prove a villain”. In the earlier play Henry VI (Part 3) Richard
killed the saintly Henry VI and his son. In his own play, he schemes to engineer
the execution of his brother (Clarence), usurps and murders his nephews (the
Princes in the Tower) and poisons his own wife before justice is finally done when
he is defeated and killed by Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth.
While the broad sweep of events is largely accurate, there is a lot about
Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III that is at best dubious. Prior to his
accession, Richard was seen as a loyal and well-respected noble and in his short
time as king he did enact laws to the benefit of the common people. His oldest
brother, Edward IV, is considered responsible for ordering the execution of Henry
VI and Clarence (who was, in fairness, not above a spot of treason). Richard had
known his wife since childhood and genuinely grieved her death, which was due to
tuberculosis rather than poison. Perhaps the most galling inaccuracy concerns
Richard’s death. In the play, Richard is thrown from his horse and wails “A horse,
a horse, my kingdom for a horse!” before being killed. In reality, Richard lost his
horse whilst charging bravely at Henry Tudor himself, but he refused the offer of a
horse that would have let him ride to safety. Even some of his most ardent critics
among the Tudor historians admitted that he fought bravely, so this one is all on
Shakespeare.
In Shakespeare’s defence, however, many of these inaccuracies are not
specifically Shakespearean inventions. There were contemporary rumours about
Richard poisoning his wife and the jury is still out on the fate of the Princes in the
Tower. Shakespeare did not invent the idea of Richard as a murderous, conniving
hunchback but was following earlier Tudor writers such as Sir Thomas More. The
discovery of Richard’s skeleton in 2012 revealed that, although he definitely was
26
not a hunchback, he did suffer from scoliosis which is a curvature of the spine, so
it is easy to see how when Richard’s body was stripped of its clothes his enemies
could make the leap to calling him a hunchback. Indeed, Tudor accounts of
Richard III should not be completely dismissed. Holinshead stated that after his
death, Richard’s naked body was paraded around Leicester before being interred at
Greyfriars Church. For centuries, his body was considered lost until it was
discovered under a Leicester car park where once had stood the church!
Henry V – At War with France and Ireland
If Richard III is the ultimate villain of Shakespeare’s history plays, then
Henry V is the ultimate hero, and surely too perfect to be a realistic portrayal? This
was the last (published) of his main history plays, written in 1599. Again,
Shakespeare leaned heavily on Holinshead and other Tudor chroniclers but also
other plays about Henry V (particularly one called The Famous Victories of Henry
the Fifth, concerning the transformation from dissolute youth to warrior king).
Henry V is often seen as a tubthumping, nationalistic play, with Henry inspiring his
men with great oratory at the siege of Harfleur (“Once more unto the breach, dear
friends, once more, or close the wall up with our English dead”) and the Battle of
Agincourt (“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he today that sheds
his blood with me shall be my brother”). However, the events of the play are
actually surprisingly accurate. The implication that Henry went to war because the
French teased him with tennis balls is, of course, a fanciful invention and he omits
the presence of a French cavalry charge at Agincourt (due the limitations of
portraying this on stage), but the events in the play did occur largely as described
by Shakespeare (albeit over a longer period of time in reality). Although Henry’s
speeches are invented by Shakespeare, Henry is thought to have had a certain
strength in his speeches that his captains lacked.
Indeed, it is unfair to characterise the play as pro-war. Shakespeare’s
presentation of war is much more ambiguous than some of the film adaptations
have implied (most famously Laurence Olivier’s wartime version in 1944). This is
27
in large part because of the context in which the play was written, with England
preparing for a war against Ireland led by the Earl of Essex for which there was
limited enthusiasm. The night before Agincourt, a disguised Henry is forced to
confront the sufferings of his ordinary soldiers and their fears, with the soldier
Michael Williams telling him, “I am afeard there are few die well that die in a
battle”. Shakespeare also includes the real-life murder of French prisoners at
Agincourt by Henry when it appeared the French were regrouping. This
juxtaposition of heroism and the bleak realities of war reveals a more nuanced play
than is sometimes perceived and one which reflected the uncertain sentiments of
the audience in 1599 – as James Shapiro has stated, it was neither a pro-war nor
anti-war play, but rather a “going-to-war play”.
Richard II – The Dangerous Subversive?
If Richard III was an obvious villain and Henry V and obvious hero, Richard
II’s character is a much more complex proposition. The play (written in 1595)
would prove troublesome because of its contemporary resonance and, although
Shakespeare would put much less of Elizabethan England into the play than
with Henry V, Richard II would prove to be Shakespeare’s most controversial play.
The 1590s was a period of dynastic uncertainty, with Elizabeth I childless (like
Richard II) and facing war in Ireland (like Richard II) and plots from unruly nobles
(like Richard II). In 1601, allies of the Earl of Essex paid for Shakespeare’s
company to perform Richard II two days before his attempted coup – the actors
protested it was “so old and so long out of use” that it would not be worth doing
until they were offered a goodly sum to change their minds. Although Shakespeare
does not seem to have suffered from this association, it is notable that the
deposition scene was never printed during Elizabeth’s lifetime. Indeed, when going
through documents relating to Richard Elizabeth allegedly observed, “I am
Richard the Second, know ye not that?” in reference to Shakespeare’s play.
Ironically, Richard II is perhaps the most accurate of these plays. Although (like
the others) the events are somewhat quickened, they are essentially correct. The
28
early scene where Richard interrupts a trial by combat between Bolingbroke and
Mowbray makes for great drama but it was also true – the combat was about to
take place when, at the last moment, Richard intervened and exiled the pair. Even
Richard’s moving soliloquy on the “death of kings” is close to an eyewitness
account of a rather maudlin speech he made during his imprisonment (Shakespeare
moves it before his imprisonment). Less accurately, Richard’s wife (the “Queen”)
is presented as an adult whereas in reality Isabella of Valois (his second wife) was
just a child, his first wife having died. Shakespeare often merged historical figures
occupying the same position (e.g. a father and son in the nobility) into one
character to simplify the narrative. The most significant change, however, was the
invention of the character Exton for the murder of Richard II – it is generally
thought that Richard was left to starve to death, almost certainly on the orders of
Bolingbroke (who became Henry IV).
Although the events are mostly accurate, Shakespeare has been criticised for being
too kind to Richard II. This is his only play written entirely in verse, making it a
much more lyrical affair than some of his other works, thus imbuing Richard with
a certain dignity that many feel he does not deserve. However, Richard is by no
means given a glowing portrayal – Shakespeare (correctly) emphasises Richard’s
belief in the Divine Right of Kings, which makes him out of touch and tyrannical
as king. Further, Gaunt’s famous, patriotic speech lauding “this sceptred isle…this
blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” is actually a tirade against
Richard, who has made England “bound in with shame” due to his misgovernance
of the kingdom.
Throughout, Richard is afforded great eloquence as he struggles to come to
terms with what it means for him to lose the crown and he is forced to come to
terms with the harsh realities of not being a divinely ordained king but a usurped
man. He mocks his previous sense of divine regality, deriding “the hollow crown
that rounds the mortal temples of a king” and observing, “I live with bread like
you, feel want, taste grief, need friends: subjected thus, how can you say to me, I
29
am a king?” The tragedy of Richard is that he realises his flaws all too late.
Whether or not he really asked himself such soul-searching questions, of course, is
a matter for speculation, but such speculation is par for the course for any writer
and Shakespeare’s interpretation has a ring of truth to it.
30
Conclusion
Shakespeare’s legacy is as rich and diverse as his work; his plays have
spawned countless adaptations across multiple genres and cultures. His plays have
had an enduring presence on stage and film. His writings have been compiled in
various iterations of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, which include
all of his plays, sonnets, and other poems. William Shakespeare continues to be
one of the most important literary figures of the English language. Especially, ,
elements of Shakespearean comedy are myriad and even today there are still many
aspects to his plays which we could analyse and dissect. What’s most obvious,
however, is that Shakespeare’s understanding of the complicated interactions
between people have laid the foundations for most comedic storytelling.
Shakespeare’s comedies explore how experiences may not necessarily be as we
perceive it to be; they found humour in pondering how suffering may be due to
reasons beyond our control; and they expose the irony in how thinking rationally
stands in stark contrast to our heart’s desires. For those reasons, it’s easy to
appreciate why his plays have retained a timeless appeal, and for writers there is
still much to be learned.
Also, Shakespeare tragedies stand out from other tragedies of dramatists. A
Shakespearean tragedy is a specific type of tragedy (a written work with a sad
ending where the hero either dies or ends up mentally, emotionally, or spiritually
devastated beyond recovery) that also includes all of the additional elements
discussed in this article
Shakespeare’s history plays are enormously appealing. Not only do they
give insight into the political processes of medieval and renaissance politics but
they also offer a glimpse of life from the top to the very bottom of society – the
royal court, the nobility, tavern life, brothels, beggars, everything. The greatest
English actual and fictional hero, Henry V, and the most notorious fictional
bounder, Falstaff, are seen in several scenes together. Not only that, but those
scenes are among the most entertaining, profound, and memorable in the whole
of English literature. That’s some achievement.
Finally, although adding this at the end of the course paper and leaving it in
the air, several questions are begged: what we see in the Shakespeare histories is
not medieval society at all, but Elizabethan and Jacobean society. This is because
although Shakespeare was writing ‘history’, using historical figures and events,
what he was really doing was writing about the politics, entertainments and social
situations of his own time. A major feature of Shakespeare’s appeal to his own
generation was recognition, something Shakespeare exploited relentlessly.
In conclusion , we can summarize that like anyone dramatising historical
events, Shakespeare was not shy in changing things to suit dramatic purpose. The
dialogue was elevated far above what would have been spoken at the time, events
were quickened to tell a better story and characters were sometimes merged to
make things simpler. Shakespeare was also guilty at times of putting the
Elizabethan world (or at least it’s constructed perception of the medieval world)
into the history plays, as well as an interpretation of history that at times can come
across as Tudor propaganda. However, the broad sweep of the events in
Shakespeare’s history plays are usually pretty accurate and he had at least done his
research with the best works of English history available at the time.
Shakespeare’s Richard III is the worst offender when it comes to accuracy, with an
almost pantomime villain who is twisted into caricature rather than a real insight
into the real king. Yet, both Henry V and Richard II show a surprising amount of
accuracy and nuance, showing a depth of analysis into the realities of those
characters going through those events. It is not Shakespeare’s fault that his works
became so definitive that for many people his plays are the real history, nor that it
is difficult to replace his version of Richard III or Henry V with one informed by
more thoroughly researched modern biographies. Shakespeare read the chronicles
and captured the history as best he could but he was no historian – rather, he used
history to find the human stories that made for great drama.
The list of used literature
1. Dowden, Edward, ed., Histories and Poems, Oxford Shakespeare, vol. 3
(Oxford, 1912), p. 82
2. Greg, W. W., The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (Oxford, 1942), p.
3. Tillyard, E. M. W., The Elizabethan World Picture (London 1943); Shakespeare's
History Plays (London 1944)
4. Campbell, L. B., Shakespeare's Histories (San Marino 1947)
5. Briggs, W. D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London 1914), p. cxxv
6. Ogburn, Dorothy, and Ogburn, Charlton, This Star of England: William
Shakespeare, Man of the Renaissance (New York, 1952), pp. 709–710
7. Pitcher, Seymour M., The Case for Shakespeare's Authorship of 'The Famous
Victories' (New York, 1961), p. 186
8. Ward, B. M., The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), from Contemporary
Documents (London, 1928), pp. 257, 282
9. Ward, B. M., ' The Famous Victories of Henry V : Its Place in Elizabethan
Dramatic Literature', Review of English Studies, IV, July 1928; p. 284
10.
Charlton, H. B., Waller, R. D., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 1st
edn.), p. 54
11. Lucas, F. L., The Complete Works of John Webster (London, 1927), vol. 3, pp.
125–126
12. Danby, John F., Shakespeare's Doctrine of Nature (London, 1949)
13. Leggatt, Alexander, Shakespeare's Political Drama: The History Plays and
the Roman Plays (London 1988)
14.Spencer, T. J. B., Shakespeare: The Roman Plays (London 1963)
15. Butler, Martin, ed., Re-Presenting Ben Jonson: Text, History,
16.Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life, Oxford University Press, New York,
1999, p. 342.
17.Duncan-Jones, K., Ungentle Shakespeare (London 2001)