Shakespeare's Histories and Sir John Falstaff

この論文は国立情報学研究所の学術雑誌公開支援事業により電子化されました。(1) Shakespeare's Histories had ample significance for the Elizabethans. The Lancastrian and Yorkist period (1398-1485), with which all of the Shakespearean Histories written in the 1590's (except " King John") dealt, meant much more to the Elizabethans than mere history of the past. The union of the two houses by Henry VII (1485) was the foundation both for the national unity and for the individual freedom of the Elizabethans, Yet there was a danger that " chaos " might have again ensued from another national disturbance, had the Governor been unwise, weak and illegitimate. The problem was vital to the Elizabethan mind, because the reign of their Queen was by no means so quiet and peaceful as that of Queen Victoria, and because their Virgin Queen had no heir apparent. Shakespeare's Histories were a sort of Mirror for Magistrates, or series of political problem plays. The recent development of Shakespearean studies has shown that the Elizabethan concept of the World Order, metaphysical and political, is reflected most typically in these Histories, It is with reason that E. M. W. Tiilyard, Dover Wilson and others lay stress on this aspect of Shakespeare's Histories. A weakness, however, is also felt in this recent tendency of the study of the Histories. Although Tillyard and Wilson are fundamentally right in treating the three parts of "Henry VI" and "Richard III" as the first tetralogy, and "Richard II, " the two parts of " Henry IV " and " Henry V " as the second tetralogy, it is also very important to appreciate the artistic characteristics of each play in the cycle. (2) " Henry IV, " the second and third part of the second tetralogy, shows a remarkable contrast to the first of the tetralogy, " Richard II." While the latter is a poetic ritual play with its own mediaeval symbolism, the former is history and comedy combined, full of Renaissance vitality, containing realistic description of contemporary scenes. In " Henry IV ", high politics and low life are contrasted, evoking the reign of Henry IV as well as the Elizabethan world. Till quite recently, however, our interest seems to have been concentrated only on the latter feature of the play. In order to appreciate the play, and to enjoy the Falstaff scenes properly, it is necessary to restore the balance between the verse scenes and the prose scenes, and to see that the true hero of the drama is not the fat knight but the lean prince. (3) Falstaff has been treated as if he were an actual existence - as a Historic rather than a Dramatic being-since Morgan published his famous essay in 1777. We have to restore him into the bounds of the play. We cannot be satisfied, however, by E. E. Stoll's method, after which, with due respect to his erudition, we cannot explain the vital difference between the conventional comic type and Shakespeare's Falstaff. Dover Wilson has developed the argument, opposing the sentimental view of the rejection of Falstaff favoured by many eminent critics after Hazlitt (most eminently by Bradley), and on many points seems to have made the final comment. There are, however, still many more things to be considered about this exquisite compound of Mediaeval parasitism and Renaissance youthfulness. If we view the cycle of Histories in the whole pattern of Shakespeare, we may have to say, as one recent critic did, that it was Henry V, and not Falstaff, who was rejected