The myth of Henry V

According to the next instalment of the legend, he used that power - especially after his own accession in March, 1413 - to repudiate unsuitable old friends. The propaganda-writers made this out to be virtuous: evidence of the depth of the new king's conversion and of the mettle of his incorruptibility. Such is the tenor of Shakespeare's account of the disgrace of 'plump Jack' Falstaff, the abettor of Henry's boyhood pranks; the same spirit pervades Shakespeare's depiction of the execution - severe but just - of Henry's old carousing companion, Bardolph. Really, faithlessness to old friends was part of the normal pattern of Henry's behaviour. He had turned on his beloved advisers and comrades-in-arms, Harry and Thomas Percy, at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. Later, he would disavow his old tutor and longtime ally, Henry Beaufort, in a dispute with the pope over papal authority in England.

The most notorious case was that of Sir John Oldcastle, a battlefield friend, whom Henry burned to death for heresy at the start of his reign: the politically subversive heresy of the Lollards, whose dangerous doctrine of 'dominion by grace' implied that kings had to earn power by being good. Henry represented the sacrifice of a friend as noble and the case as a trial of his own faith - 'God scourged him,' his chaplain said, 'in Sir John Oldcastle'.

A further dimension of Henry's quest for security at home was war abroad - a way of exporting aristocratic violence. He had no right to the crown of France - after all, he had no right to that of England either - but it was an ineluctably traditional claim: a real king in England was obliged to pretend to the throne of France. According to the legend, the war displayed Henry's military genius. Really, it was a story of gambler's luck. At first, Henry probably envisaged no more than a chevauchée - a raid where the English would grab what they could. But a superior French army got stuck in the mud at Agincourt and Henry did what every gambler does with unexpected winnings: he increased his stake, bidding to rule France in reality. He also began, on the field of Agincourt, a career as a war criminal, massacring prisoners in defiance of the conventions. Even so, the French hated each other more than they hated him. So he was able to prolong victory in alliance with French factions and successfully demanded a promise of the reversion of the throne.

The policy was never likely to succeed: the war overstretched English resources and left the parts of France which Henry conquered prostrate with depredations and disease. But the last element of the legend fell into place. Henry married a French princess, Catherine of Valois. It was a marriage of convenience - part of the political deal: a typical royal marriage, in fact. Henry neglected his bride and, when he was dying, ignored her. The great love of her life was her bodyguard, whom she married after her husband's death. Yet Shakespeare's love-scenes have stamped English minds with effectively indelible romantic images. We should not repine. In history, myths are more powerful than facts. In the long run, they generate more effects. The course of history, if there is such a thing, depends less on what actually happens than on the falsehoods people believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/godiva_01.shtml

Дата добавления: 2015-07-26