This thesis relates Coriolanus to traditions of Renaissance and Reformation thinking on Hercules and Hydra, which had acquired new connotations in the age after neglect during the Middle Ages; and this study investigates the play’s engagement with that material and more precisely its active relationships to texts and ideas at present under-represented in its critical reception and especially by Shakespearean critics. Coriolanus highlights the conflict between the patricians including heroic Coriolanus and the plebeians, and Coriolanus describes the plebeians as “the many-headed multitude” like “Hydra” (2.3.16-17; 3.1.96). Coriolanus is compared to Hercules (4.6.104), and battle between Hercules and the many-headed Hydra is suggested in the play. If Hydra symbolises subjects, likewise Hercules stands for rulers. In short, the closer examination of Hercules and Hydra leads us to a deeper understanding of Shakespeare’s presentation of rulers and subjects. In the Introduction, a preliminary analysis of Coriolanus will elucidate the significance of the mythical hero and monster. Chapter 1 will discuss the roots of the phrase “many-headed multitude” in Coriolanus: it is a reflection, in complex form, of the really existing social instability in late Tudor and early Stuart England, which experienced many rebellions and famines; and it is in the tradition of Renaissance Humanism. Building on this material, Chapter 2 explores the way some European monarchs compared themselves to Hercules. The next two chapters analyse Herculean “eloquence” and “virtue,” which are quintessentially Humanistic terms, and they trace the use of the “eloquent” and “virtuous” Hercules as a model for European monarchs in the Renaissance. Finally, we study Hydra as a symbol of “the flexibility of the self” in the Humanistic tradition. This study employs the methodology of the iconology of the Warburg School and the history of ideas, referring to Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Holbein’s engravings, and Alciato’s emblem books, etc.

Scholarship in the latter half of the twentieth century did much to rehabilitate Shakespeare’s early histories into the canon. Discarded on the grounds of collaborative authorship or lack of unity, the Henry VI trilogy has perhaps suffered the most. This dissertation brings together sensory and historiographical theories in order to demonstrate that the first tetralogy exposes the limitations of historical narrative. Historical ‘truth’ is easily distorted: initially through the individual’s failure to interpret sensory information and then through the writer who records those events. These fundamental questions about the credibility of knowledge and truth remain a central concern throughout the second tetralogy, King John and Henry VIII. The questionable truth-telling powers of sight and sound independent from one another are a recurring motif in Shakespeare’s histories; skewed perception or selective hearing can have disastrous consequences. Motives are frequently ambiguous and the plays abound in trial scenes that are never satisfactorily resolved. Often the audience are invited to accept a ‘truth’ that contradicts the evidence of the play either in its text, its performance or in comparison to contemporary history plays. Henry VIII, with its titular claim that ‘All is True’ alongside glaring historical omissions, is an example of the early modern obsession with paradox. Cranmer’s highly selective presentation of a glorious untroubled future, though clearly not true, is a satisfying and restorative narrative. A similar contradiction reveals itself in my case study of preaching at St Mary Spital. At this event, preachers and City Fathers collude in a highly selective presentation of London as a charitable and exemplary city, though this may well have been contradicted by other visual evidence on the occasion. Both plays and sermons thus presented the paradox of a fictive narrative that could be openly contradicted, but that simultaneously provided consolation.

This thesis examines the staging of Shakespeare's History plays by the Royal Shakespeare Company during the period between 1963 (the Hall-Barton <i>The Wars of the Roses</i>) and 1988 (the Noble-Wood <i>Plantagenets</i>). Although the English Histories are the main focus, productions of other Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean texts are included as points of reference; the primary source materials of the study are the company's prompt books and production records. Using this material as its basis, the study investigates the cultural politics of contemporary Shakespearean theatre production, exploring the relationships between the literary text and performance in their various political, institutional, historical and theatrical contexts.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.