1. E. M. W. Tillyard, Shakespeare's History Plays (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962), p. 21.

2. Lily B. Campbell, Shakespeare's Histories (London: Methuen, 1964), pp. 3-4.

3. Tillyard, Shakespeare's History Plays, pp. 69, 237.

4. Campbell, Shakespeare's Histories, p. 6.

5. Jan Kott, Shakespeare Our Contemporary, 2d ed. (London: Methuen, 1967), pp. 14, 39.

6. See Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (London: Routledge, 1978), p. 19; and Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976), p. 315.

7. See Alan Sinfield, ed., Society and Literature, 1945-1970 (London: Methuen, 1983), pp. 94-105; Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, eds., Political Shakespeare (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 131-33, 160-64.

8. Wilbur Sanders, The Dramatist and the Received Idea (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 157, 166, and also p. 190.

9. Cf. ibid., pp. 183-85.

8. Wilbur Sanders, The Dramatist and the Received Idea (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 157, 166, and also p. 190.

9. Cf. ibid., pp. 183-85.

10. G. K. Hunter, Dramatic Identities and Cultural Tradition (Liverpool: Liverpool Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 251-52.

11. A materialist criticism will be concerned with aspects of ideology additional to those dealt with here, and our emphasis on ideology as legitimation, though crucial, should not be taken as an exhaustive definition of the topic. For a fuller discussion of ideology and subjectivity, see Dollimore, Radical Tragedy, esp. chs. 1, 10, 16; Dollimore and Sinfield, eds., Political Shakespeare ; and, more generally, Janet Wolff, The Social Production of Art (London: Macmillan, 1981), esp. ch. 3.

12. See Stephen Orgel, "Making Greatness Familiar," in Stephen Greenblatt, ed., The Power of Forms in the English Renaissance (Norman, Okla.: Pilgrim Books, 1982).

13. Ian Breward, ed., The Work of William Perkins (Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1970), p. 150.

14. Ibid., p. 449.

15. Lancelot Andrewes, Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1841), 1:325.

16. Shakespeare, Henry V, ed. John H. Walter (London: Methuen, 1954), 1.2.211-12.

17. See pp. 175-81, 199-200, and Alan Sinfield, Literature in Protestant England, 1550-1660 (London: Croom Helm, 1983), ch. 7.

18. This distinction derives from (but also differs from) Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (London: Macmillan, 1981), 1:231-37.

19. See Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1977), pp. 121-27.

20. John Strype, The Life and Acts of John Whitgift (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1822), 1:524-26. See further Felicity Heal, Of Prelates and Princes (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980).

21. J. E. Neale, Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601 (London: Cape, 1957), pp. 309-10; Lucy de Bruyn, Mob-Rule and Riots (London: Regency, 1981), p. 36.

22. William Hunt, The Puritan Moment (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 33, 60-61.

23. See Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolute State (London: New Left Books, 1974), pp. 16-59, 113-42; W. T. MacCaffrey, "England: The Crown and the New Aristocracy, 1540-1600," Past and Present 30 (1965): 52-64.

24. G. B. Harrison, The Life and Death of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (London: Cassell, 1937), p. 102 and chs. 9-12.

25. Ibid., pp. 214-15. See in the present volume pp. 40-41.

26. Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, vol. 4, Later English History Plays (London: Routledge, 1966), p. 386.

27. Andrewes, Works, 1:326.

28. See Gary Taylor's note to these lines in his Oxford edition of Henry V (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982).

29. Hunt, Puritan Moment, p. 60; de Bruyn, Mob-Rule, p. 62; for further instances see Hunt, p. 50; and de Bruyn, p. 26.

30. Philip Edwards, Threshold of a Nation (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979), pp. 75-78, referring to Henry V 3.2.125-27. Edwards shows how an Irish captain who had been in Essex's army made a protest similar to that of Macmorris.

31. David Williams, A History of Modern Wales, 2d ed. (London: John Murray, 1977), ch. 3.

32. Paul L. Hughes and James F. Larkin, Tudor Royal Proclamations (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1969), 3:134-35.

33. Edwards, Threshold, pp. 74-86. See David Beers Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1966), chs. 4, 5, and 7.

34. Richard Levin, "The Poetics and Politics of Bardicide," PMLA 105 (1990): 491-504.

35. Edmund Spenser, A View of the Present State of Ireland, ed. W. L. Renwick (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 104.

36. Hughes and Larkin, Tudor Royal Proclamations, 3:201.

37. George L. Geckle, "Politics and Sexuality in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy," in H. W. Matalene, Romanticism and Culture: A Tribute to Morse Peckham (Columbia, S.C.: Camden House, 1984), pp. 130-31. The second half of the present chapter is new; Jonathan Dollimore and I have sometimes been asked why we did not address the sexual politics of Henry V in this essay as it appeared in Alternative Shakespeares, edited by John Drakakis. The answer is that other essays in Alternative Shakespeares were to do that (see the fine contributions of Jacqueline Rose and Catherine Belsey), and we had a strict word limit in which to attempt the complex topic of ideology.

38. Linda Bamber, Comic Women, Tragic Men (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1982), p. 152; Peter Erickson, Patriarchal Structures in Shakespeare's Drama (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1985), p. 62. This is like Wilbur Sanders's centering of individuals in the history plays (see n. 8 above).

39. See Dollimore, in Dollimore and Sinfield, eds., Political Shakespeare, pp. 72-80.

40. Coppélia Kahn, Man's Estate (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1981), p. 47; Bamber, Comic Women, pp. 135, 164-65; Erickson, Patriarchal

Structures, pp. 61-62. However, Phyllis Rackin argues that women are potentially subversive in Shakespearean history plays, that this subversion works only momentarily in 1 Henry VI, and that it is effective in King John (Rackin, Stages of History [Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1990], ch. 4). See also Jean Howard, "'Effeminately Dolent': Gender and Legitimacy in Ford's Perkin Warbeck, " in Michael Neill, ed., John Ford: Critical Re-Visions (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), pp. 263, 278, et passim.

41. 1.2.91-92. Here, no doubt significantly, but I am no Freudian, Coppélia Kahn slips, and says, "Henry bases his claim to the French crown on the Salic Law, which forbids inheritance through the female" ( Man's Estate, p. 79). It is the other way round: Henry's title depends on denying that Salic law applies, he claims to inherit through the female line.

42. Rackin, Stages of History, p. 191; also pp. 167-68.

43. Shakespeare, 1 Henry IV, ed. A. R. Humphreys (London: Methuen, 1960), 1.3.28-68.

44. Shakespeare, Richard II, ed. Peter Ure (London: Methuen, 1966), 5.3.7, 10-12.

45. Richard III, ed. Antony Hammond (London: Methuen, 1981), 3.7.210; Romeo and Juliet, ed. Brian Gibbons (London: Methuen, 1980), 3.1.116.

46. 1 Henry IV 1.2.2-4, 3.3.150-52; Richard II 5.3.7. In an essay forth-coming in Renaissance Drama (1991), "Wales, Ireland, and 1 Henry IV, " Christopher Highley shows how 1 Henry IV, like other contemporary documents, imagines the threat from the Celtic fringe in terms of the overthrow of a masculine English identity through castration.

47. In Elaine Showalter, ed., The New Feminist Criticism (London: Virago, 1986), p. 278. Coppélia Kahn, partly following W. H. Auden in The Dyer's Hand (New York: Random House, 1963), p. 196, says Falstaff avoids "sexual maturity," desires food and drink more than women, and gives "his own deepest affections to a boy" (Kahn, Man's Estate, pp. 72-73). Of course, Auden and Kahn are hinting, darkly, at homosexuality.

48. Shakespeare, 2 Henry IV, ed. A. R. Humphreys (London: Methuen, 1966), 4.4.31-33; 5.4.

49. Howard, "'Effeminately Dolent,'" p. 275. Howard argues that Perkin Warbeck in John Ford's play of that name (c. 1632) is "'contaminated' by traffic with the feminine," that his courtship is unlike that of Henry V, and that it all shows "the faltering, but hardly the collapse, of the machinery of patriarchal absolutism" (pp. 272, 276).

50. In the New Arden edition, John H. Walter says "the effeminate Dauphin is riding a lady's horse" (p. 84), but Gary Taylor in the Oxford edition says this need not be so, discerning no "signs of effeminacy in the Dauphin" (p. 197). Erickson says the Dauphin is "a travesty of masculinity" ( Patriarchal Structures, p. 55).

51. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 25, 5, and pp. 1-27, passim. See Stephen Orgel, "Nobody's Perfect: Or Why Did the English Stage Take Boys for Women?" South Atlantic Quarterly 88 (1989):

7-29; Alan Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England (London: Gay Men's Press, 1982); and Alan Bray's important new article: ''Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England," History Workshop 29 (1990): 1-19.

52. See Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980); Thomas Laqueur, "Orgasm, Generation, and the Politics of Reproductive Biology," Representations 14 (1986): 1-41; Greenblatt, "Fiction and Friction," in Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 73-86.

53. J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth (London: Cape, 1934), p. 279.

54. Troilus and Cressida, ed. Kenneth Palmer (London: Methuen, 1982), 3.3.216-19; Orgel, "Nobody's Perfect," pp. 14-15. Rebecca W. Bushnell observes that tyrants were said to be "effeminate"—subject to their lusts, mainly in respect of women ( Tragedies of Tyrants [Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1990], pp. 63-69).

55. Spenser, View, ed. Renwick, pp. 69-70. Spenser says he is quoting Aristotle, but Renwick says it is an elaboration of Herodotus (p. 206).

56. For Erickson, this "set piece is a microcosm of the historical as well as psychological escapism implicit in Henry V's heroic impulse" ( Patriarchal Structures, p. 54).

57. See Norman Rabkin, "Rabbits, Ducks and Herny V, " Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977): 279-96; Kahn, Man's Estate, pp. 79-80; Colin MacCabe, "Towards a Modern Trivium—English Studies Today," Critical Quarterly 26 (1984): 69-82, p. 72; Leonard Tennenhouse, Power on Display (New York: Methuen, 1986), p. 71; Erickson, Patriarchal Structures, pp. 59-63; Lance Wilcox, "Katherine of France as Victim and Bride," Shakespeare Studies 17 (1985): 61-76.

58. Taylor, ed., Henry V (Oxford ed.), p. 270.

59. Kahn, Man's Estate, p. 79; Bamber, Comic Women, p. 146.

60. Wilcox, "Katherine of France," p. 66.

61. Shakespeare, 1 Henry VI, ed. Andrew S. Cairncross (London: Methuen, 1962), 1.1.35, 5.4.107. Coppélia Kahn quotes the prophecy that there will be "none but women left to wail the dead" ( 1 Henry VI 1.1.51) and observes "the fear that without the masculine principle of succession the race will become impotent and feminized" (Kahn, Man's Estate, p. 62).

62. Spenser, View, ed. Renwick, pp. 66-68. See also the notes in Rudolf Gottfried, ed., Spenser's Prose Works, in Edwin Greenlaw, Charles Grosvenor Osgood, Frederick Morgan Padelford, and Ray Heffner, eds., The Works of Edmund Spenser: A Variorum Edition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1949), pp. 349-51.