1st Evidence Remover v1.6 by REVENGE serial key or number

Birth name	John Joseph Pershing
Nickname(s)	"Black Jack"
Born	()September 13, Laclede, Missouri, U.S.
Died	July 15, () (aged&#;87) Walter Reed General Hospital Washington, D.C., U.S.
Buried
Allegiance	United States
Service/branch	United States Army
Years&#;of service	–
Rank	General of the Armies
Service number	O-1
Commands held	8th Brigade[1][2] Mexican Expedition American Expeditionary Force First United States Army Chief of Staff of the United States Army
Battles/wars	Indian Wars Spanish–American War Philippine–American War Russo-Japanese War Mexican Revolution World War I
Awards	Distinguished Service Cross Distinguished Service Medal Silver Star Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (United Kingdom) Légion d'honneur (France)
Signature

General of the ArmiesJohn Joseph "Black Jack" PershingGCB (September 13, – July 15, ) was a senior United States Armyofficer. He served most famously as the commander of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) on the Western Front in World War I, –

Pershing rejected British and French demands that American forces be integrated with their armies, and insisted that the AEF would operate as a single unit under his command, although some American divisions fought under British command, and he also allowed all-black units to be integrated with the French army.

Pershing's soldiers first saw serious battle at Cantigny, Chateau-Thierry, Belleau Wood, and Soissons. To speed up the arrival of American troops, they embarked for France leaving heavy equipment behind, and used British and French tanks, artillery, airplanes and other munitions. In September at St. Mihiel, the First Army was directly under Pershing's command; it overwhelmed the salient – the encroachment into Allied territory – that the German Army had held for three years. For the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, Pershing shifted roughly , American soldiers to the heavily defended forests of the Argonne, keeping his divisions engaged in hard fighting for 47 days, alongside the French. The AlliedHundred Days Offensive, which the Argonne fighting was part of, contributed to Germany calling for an armistice. Pershing was of the opinion that the war should continue and that all of Germany should be occupied in an effort to permanently destroy German militarism.

Pershing is the only American to be promoted in his own lifetime to General of the Armies rank, the highest possible rank in the United States Army.^{[Notes 1]} Allowed to select his own insignia, Pershing chose to use four gold stars to distinguish himself from those officers who held the rank of General, which was signified with four silver stars.^[3] After the creation of the five-star General of the Army rank during World War II, his rank of General of the Armies could unofficially be considered that of a six-star general, but he died before the proposed insignia could be considered and acted upon by Congress.

Some of his tactics have been criticized both by other commanders at the time and by modern historians. His reliance on costly frontal assaults, long after other Allied armies had abandoned such tactics, has been blamed for causing unnecessarily high American casualties.^[4] In addition to leading the A.E.F. to victory in World War I, Pershing notably served as a mentor to many in the generation of generals who led the United States Army during World War II, including George Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Lesley J. McNair, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur.^[5][6]

Pershing was also criticized by some historians for his actions on the day of armistice as the commander of the American Expeditionary Force. Pershing did not approve of the armistice, and despite knowing of the imminent ceasefire, he did not tell his commanders to suspend any new offensive actions or assaults in the final few hours of the war.^[7] In total, there were over 11, casualties, dead, missing, or injured during the final day of the war on November 11, which exceeded even D-Day casualty counts seen later in Of those, 3, were American casualties directly attributable to Pershing's actions. Pershing was later questioned by Congress as to why there were so many American casualties on the final day of the war.^[7]

Early life[edit]

Pershing was born on a farm near Laclede, Missouri, to businessman John Fletcher Pershing and homemaker Ann Elizabeth Thompson. Pershing's great-great-grandfather, Frederick Pershing, whose name originally was Pfersching, emigrated from Alsace, leaving Amsterdam on the ship Jacob, and arriving in Philadelphia on October 2, Pershing's mother was of English descent. He also had five siblings: brothers James F. (–) and Ward (–), and sisters Mary Elizabeth (–), Anna May (–) and Grace (–); three other children died in infancy.^[8][9][10] When the Civil War began, his father supported the Union and was a sutler for the 18th Missouri Volunteer Infantry.

Pershing attended a school in Laclede that was reserved for precocious students who were also the children of prominent citizens. Completing high school in , he became a teacher of local African American children. While pursuing his teaching career, Pershing also studied at the State Normal School (now Truman State University) in Kirksville, Missouri, from which he graduated in with a bachelor of science degree in scientific didactics.^[11][12] Two years later, he applied to the United States Military Academy. Pershing later admitted that serving in the military was secondary to attending West Point, and he had applied because the education offered was much better than that obtainable in rural Missouri.

West Point years[edit]

Pershing as a cadet in

Pershing was sworn in as a West Point cadet in the fall of ^[13] He was selected early for leadership positions and became successively First Corporal, First Sergeant, First Lieutenant, and First Captain, the highest possible cadet rank.^[14] Pershing also commanded, ex officio, the honor guard that saluted the funeral train of PresidentUlysses S. Grant as it passed West Point in August ^[15]

Pershing graduated in the summer of ranked 30th in his class of 77, and was commissioned a second lieutenant;^[16] he was commended by the West Point Superintendent, General Wesley Merritt, who said Pershing gave early promise of becoming an outstanding officer.^[17] Pershing briefly considered petitioning the Army to let him study law and delay the start of his mandatory military service.^[18] He also considered joining several classmates in a partnership that would pursue development of an irrigation project in Oregon.^[19] He ultimately decided against both courses of action in favor of active Army duty.^[20]

Early career[edit]

Pershing reported for active duty on September 30, , and was assigned to Troop L of the 6th U.S. Cavalry stationed at Fort Bayard, in the New Mexico Territory. While serving in the 6th Cavalry, Pershing participated in several Indian campaigns and was cited for bravery for actions against the Apache. During his time at Fort Stanton, Pershing and close friends Lt. Julius A. Penn and Lt. Richard B. Paddock were nicknamed "The Three Green P's," spending their leisure time hunting and attending Hispanic dances. Pershing's sister Grace married Paddock in ^[21]

Between and , Pershing served with the 6th Cavalry at various postings in California, Arizona, and North Dakota. He also became an expert marksman and, in , was rated second in pistol and fifth in rifle out of all soldiers in the U.S. Army.

On December 9, , Pershing and the 6th Cavalry arrived at Sioux City, Iowa, where Pershing played a role in suppressing the last uprisings of the Lakota (Sioux)Indians. Though he and his unit did not participate in the Wounded Knee Massacre, they did fight three days after it on January 1, when Sioux warriors attacked the 6th Cavalry's supply wagons. When the Sioux began firing at the wagons, Pershing and his troops heard the shots, and rode more than six miles to the location of the attack. The cavalry fired at the forces of Chief War Eagle, causing them to retreat. This would be the only occasion where Pershing would see action in the Ghost Dance campaign.^[22]

In September he was assigned as the Professor of Military Science and Tactics at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, a position he held until While carrying out this assignment, Pershing attended the university's College of Law,^[23] from which he received his LL.B. degree in ^[24] He formed a drill company of chosen university cadets, Company A. In March , it won the Maiden Prize competition of the National Competitive Drills in Omaha, Nebraska. The Citizens of Omaha presented the company with a large silver cup, the "Omaha Cup." On October 2, , former members of Company A established a fraternal military drill organization named the Varsity Rifles. The group renamed itself the Pershing Rifles in in honor of its mentor and patron.^[25] Pershing maintained a close relationship with Pershing Rifles for the remainder of his life.^[26][27]

On October 20, ,^[28] Pershing was promoted to first lieutenant and in took command of a troop of the 10th Cavalry Regiment, one of the original Buffalo Soldier regiments composed of African-American soldiers under white officers. From Fort Assinniboine in north central Montana, he commanded an expedition to the south and southwest that rounded up and deported a large number of Cree Indians to Canada.

West Point instructor [edit]

Captain John J. Pershing, c

Pershing with his wife Helen and three of their children

In , Pershing was appointed to the West Point tactical staff as an instructor, where he was assigned to Cadet Company A. Because of his strictness and rigidity, Pershing was unpopular with the cadets, who took to calling him "Nigger Jack" because of his service with the 10th Cavalry.^[29][30][31]

During the course of his tour at the Academy, this epithet softened to "Black Jack," although, according to Vandiver, "the intent remained hostile."^[29] Still, this nickname would stick with Pershing for the rest of his life, and was known to the public as early as ^[32]

Spanish– and Philippine–American wars[edit]

At the start of the Spanish–American War, First Lieutenant Pershing was the regimental quartermaster for the 10th Cavalry; he fought on Kettle and San Juan Hills in Cuba, and was cited for gallantry. In , he was awarded the Silver Citation Star for these actions, and in the award was upgraded to the Silver Star decoration. A commanding officer here commented on Pershing's calm demeanor under fire, saying he was "cool as a bowl of cracked ice.".^[33] Pershing also served with the 10th Cavalry during the siege and surrender of Santiago de Cuba.

Pershing was commissioned as a major of United States Volunteers on August 26, , and assigned as an ordnance officer. In March , after suffering from malaria, Pershing was put in charge of the Office of Customs and Insular Affairs which oversaw occupation forces in territories gained in the Spanish–American War, including Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. He was honorably discharged from the volunteers and reverted to his permanent rank of first lieutenant on May 12, He was again commissioned as a major of Volunteers on June 6, , this time as an assistant adjutant general.

When the Philippine–American War began, Pershing reported to Manila on August 17, , was assigned to the Department of Mindanao and Jolo, and commanded efforts to suppress the Filipino Insurrection.^[34] On November 27, , Pershing was appointed Adjutant General of his department and served in this posting until March 1, He was cited for bravery for actions on the Cagayan River while attempting to destroy a Philippine stronghold at Macajambo.

Pershing wrote in his autobiography that "The bodies [of some Moro outlaws] were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig."^[35][36] This treatment was used against captured juramentado so that the superstitious Moro would believe they would be going to hell.^[37] Pershing added that "it was not pleasant [for the Army] to have to take such measures".^[35][38] Historians do not believe that Pershing was directly involved with such incidents, or that he personally gave such orders to his subordinates. Letters and memoirs from soldiers describing events similar to this do not have credible evidence of Pershing having been personally involved.^[39][40] Similarly, the claim made by Donald Trump during his presidential campaign in February that Pershing executed 49 "Muslim terrorists" with bullets dipped in pig's blood, then let the 50th go free to spread the word about the religious atrocity, which Trump alluded to again while serving as president in August , has been repeatedly debunked by historians, who find no evidence that such an incident occurred.^{[39][40][41][Notes 2]}

On June 30, , Pershing was honorably discharged from the Volunteers and he reverted to the rank of captain in the Regular Army to which he had been promoted on February 2, He served with the 1st Cavalry Regiment in the Philippines. He later was assigned to the 15th Cavalry Regiment, serving as an intelligence officer and participating in actions against the Moros. He was cited for bravery at Lake Lanao. In June , he served as Commander of Camp Vicars in Lanao, Philippines, after the previous camp commander had been promoted to brigadier general.

Rise to general[edit]

In June , Pershing was ordered to return to the United States. President Theodore Roosevelt, taken by Pershing's ability, petitioned the Army General Staff to promote Pershing to colonel. At the time, Army officer promotions were based primarily on seniority rather than merit,^[33] and although there was widespread acknowledgment that Pershing should serve as a colonel, the Army General Staff declined to change their seniority-based promotion tradition just to accommodate Pershing. They would not consider a promotion to lieutenant colonel or even major. This angered Roosevelt, but since the President could only name and promote army officers in the General ranks, his options for recognizing Pershing through promotion were limited.

In , Pershing was assigned as the Assistant Chief of Staff of the Southwest Army Division stationed at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In October , he attended the Army War College, and then was ordered to Washington, D.C. for "general duties unassigned."

Since Roosevelt could not yet promote Pershing, he petitioned the United States Congress to authorize a diplomatic posting, and Pershing was stationed as military attaché in Tokyo in Also in , Pershing married Helen Frances Warren, the daughter of powerful U.S. SenatorFrancis E. Warren, a WyomingRepublican who served at different times as chairman of the Military Affairs and Appropriations Committees. This union with the daughter of a powerful politician who had also received the Medal of Honor during the American Civil War continued to aid Pershing's career even after his wife died in ^[42]

After serving as an observer in the Russo-Japanese War attached to General Kuroki Tamemoto's Japanese First Army in Manchuria from March to September,^[43] Pershing returned to the United States in the fall of President Roosevelt employed his presidential prerogative and nominated Pershing as a brigadier general, a move which Congress approved. In skipping three ranks and more than officers senior to him, the promotion gave rise to accusations that Pershing's appointment was the result of political connections and not military abilities.^[44] However, several other junior officers were similarly advanced to brigadier general ahead of their peers and seniors, including Albert L. Mills (captain), Tasker H. Bliss (major), and Leonard Wood (captain). Pershing's promotion, while unusual, was not unprecedented, and had the support of many soldiers who admired his abilities.^[45][46]

In , Pershing briefly served as a U.S. military observer in the Balkans, an assignment which was based in Paris. Upon returning to the United States at the end of , Pershing was assigned once again to the Philippines, an assignment in which he served until While in the Philippines, he served as Commander of Fort McKinley, near Manila, and also was the governor of the Moro Province. The last of Pershing's four children was born in the Philippines, and during this time he became an Episcopalian.

In , Pershing was recommended for the Medal of Honor following his actions at the Battle of Bud Bagsak.^[47] He wrote to the Adjutant General to request that the recommendation not be acted on, though the board which considered the recommendation had already voted no before receiving Pershing's letter.^[48] In a further review of this event resulted in Pershing being recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross, but as the Army Chief of Staff Pershing disapproved the action.^[49] In Pershing received the Distinguished Service Cross for his heroism at Bud Bagsak, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt presenting it in a ceremony timed to coincide with Pershing's 80th birthday.^[50]

During this period Pershing's reputation for both stern discipline and effective leadership continued to grow, with one experienced old soldier under his command later saying Pershing was an "S.O.B." and that he hated Pershing's guts, but that "as a soldier, the ones then and the ones now couldn't polish his (Pershing's) boots."^[51]

Pancho Villa and Mexico[edit]

Generals Obregón, Villa, and Pershing, August A year later, Pershing's wife and three of his children died, and Villa sent him condolences. Six months later, Pershing chased Villa in Mexico.

Nita Patton was engaged to Pershing in –

Postcard of Pershing's camp at Fort Bliss.

On December 20, , Pershing received orders to take command of the 8th Brigade at the Presidio in San Francisco. With tensions running high on the border between the United States and Mexico, the brigade was deployed to Fort Bliss, Texas on April 24, , arriving there on the 27th.^[52]

Death of wife and children[edit]

After a year at Fort Bliss, Pershing decided to take his family there. The arrangements were almost complete, when on the morning of August 27, , he received a telegram informing him of a fire in the Presidio in San Francisco, where a lacquered floor caught fire and the flames rapidly spread, resulting in the smoke inhalation deaths of his wife, Helen Frances Warren, and three young daughters, Mary, age 3, Anne, age 7, and Helen, age 8. Only his 6-year-old son, Francis Warren, survived.^[53][54] After the funerals at Lakeview Cemetery in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Pershing returned to Fort Bliss with his son, Francis, and his sister May and resumed his duties as commanding officer.^[55][56]

Relationship with Nita Patton[edit]

Two years after the death of his wife and children, Pershing courted Anne Wilson "Nita" Patton, the younger sister of his protégé, George S. Patton.^[57] Pershing met her when she traveled to Fort Bliss to visit her brother,^[58] and he introduced them.^[58] Pershing and Nita Patton soon began a relationship; they became engaged in , but their separation because of Pershing's time in France during World War I ended it.^[57][58] Pershing had wartime affairs, including one with French-Romanian Micheline Resco (–), an artist who painted his portrait, and he later expressed regret that he had let Nita Patton "get away".^[59] Nita Patton never married, while Pershing remained unmarried until he secretly wed Resco in ^[58][60][61]

Commander of Villa expedition[edit]

On March 15, ,^[62][63][64] Pershing led an expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition was ill-equipped and hampered by a lack of supplies due to the breakdown of the Quartermaster Corps. Although there had been talk of war on the border for years, no steps had been taken to provide for the handling of supplies for an expedition. Despite this and other hindrances, such as the lack of aid from the former Mexican government, and their refusal to allow American troops to transport troops and supplies over their railroads, Pershing organized and commanded the Mexican Punitive Expedition, a combined armed force of 10, men that penetrated miles (&#;km) into Mexico. They routed Villa's revolutionaries, but failed to capture him.^[65][66]

World War I[edit]

At the start of the United States' involvement in World War I President Woodrow Wilson considered mobilizing an army to join the fight. Frederick Funston, Pershing's superior in Mexico, was being considered for the top billet as the Commander of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) when he died suddenly from a heart attack on February 19, Pershing was the most likely candidate other than Funston, and following America's entrance into the war in May, Wilson briefly interviewed Pershing, and then selected him for the command. He was officially installed in the position on May 10, , and held the post until On October&#;6, , Pershing, then a major general, was promoted to full general in the National Army. He bypassed the three star rank of lieutenant general, and was the first full general since Philip Sheridan in As AEF commander, Pershing was responsible for the organization, training, and supply of a combined professional and draft Army and National Guard force that eventually grew from 27, inexperienced men to two Armies, with a third forming as the war ended, totaling over two million soldiers.

Pershing exercised significant control over his command, with a full delegation of authority from Wilson and Secretary of WarNewton D. Baker. Baker, cognizant of the endless problems of domestic and allied political involvement in military decision making in wartime, gave Pershing unmatched authority to run his command as he saw fit. In turn, Pershing exercised his prerogative carefully, not engaging in politics or disputes over government policy that might distract him from his military mission. While earlier a champion of the African-American soldier, he did not advocate their full participation on the battlefield, understanding the general racial attitudes of white Americans.

George Marshall served as one of Pershing's top assistants during and after the war. Pershing's initial chief of staff was James Harbord, who later took a combat command but worked as Pershing's closest assistant for many years and remained extremely loyal to him.

After departing from Fort Jay at Governors Island in New York Harbor under top secrecy in May aboard the RMS Baltic, Pershing arrived in France in June In a show of American presence, part of the 16th Infantry Regiment marched through Paris shortly after his arrival. Pausing at the tomb of Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, he was reputed to have uttered the famous line "Lafayette, we are here," a line spoken, in fact, by his aide, Colonel Charles E. Stanton.^[67] American forces were deployed in France in the autumn of

In September the French government commissioned a portrait of Pershing by year-old Romanian artist Micheline Resco. Pershing removed the stars and flag from his car and sat up front with his chauffeur while traveling from his AEF headquarters to visit her by night in her apartment on the rue Descombes. Their friendship continued for the rest of his life.^[68] In , at 85, Pershing secretly wed Resco in his Walter Reed Hospital apartment. Resco was 35 years his junior^[60]

Battle of Hamel[edit]

For the first time in American history, Pershing allowed American soldiers to be under the command of a foreign power. In late June, General Rawlinson, commanding the British Fourth Army, suggested to Australian Lieutenant General John Monash that American involvement in a set-piece attack alongside the experienced Australians in the upcoming Battle of Hamel would both give the American troops experience and also strengthen the Australian battalions by an additional company each. On June 29, General Bell, commanding the American 33rd Division, selected two companies each from the st and nd Infantry regiments of the 66th brigade. Monash had been promised ten companies of American troops and on June 30 the remaining companies of the 1st and 2nd battalions of the st regiment were sent. Each American platoon was attached to an Australian company, but there was difficulty in integrating the American platoons (which numbered 60 men) among the Australian companies of men. This difficulty was overcome by reducing the size of each American platoon by one-fifth and sending the troops thus removed, which numbered 50 officers and men, back to battalion reinforcement camps.

The day before the attack was scheduled to commence, Pershing learned of the plan and ordered the withdrawal of six American companies.^[69] While a few Americans, such as those attached to the 42nd Battalion, disobeyed the order, the majority, although disappointed, moved back to the rear. This meant that battalions had to rearrange their attack formations and caused a serious reduction in the size of the Allied force. For example, the 11th Brigade was now attacking with 2, men instead of 3,^[70] There was a further last-minute call for the removal of all American troops from the attack, but Monash, who had chosen 4 July as the date of the attack out of "deference" to the US troops, protested to Rawlinson and received support from Field Marshal Douglas Haig, commander of the British Expeditionary Force.^[69][71] The four American companies that had joined the Australians during the assault were withdrawn from the line after the battle and returned to their regiments, having gained valuable experience. Monash sent Bell his personal thanks, praising the Americans' gallantry, while Pershing set out explicit instructions to ensure that US troops would not be employed in a similar manner again.^[69]

African-American units[edit]

Under civilian control of the military, Pershing adhered to the racial policies of PresidentWoodrow Wilson, Secretary of WarNewton D. Baker, and southern Democrats who promoted the "separate but equal" doctrine. African-American "Buffalo Soldiers" units were not allowed to participate with the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) during World War I, but experienced non-commissioned officers were provided to other segregated black units for combat service—such as the th Engineer Battalion.^[72] The American Buffalo Soldiers of the 92nd and 93rd Infantry Divisions were the first American soldiers to fight in France in , but they did so under French command as Pershing had detached them from the AEF. Most regiments of the 92nd and all of the 93rd would continue to fight under French command for the duration of the war.^[73]

World War I: and full American participation[edit]

Pershing at General Headquarters in Chaumont, France, October

In early , entire divisions were beginning to serve on the front lines alongside French troops. Pershing insisted that the AEF fight as units under American command rather than being split up by battalions to augment British and French regiments and brigades (although the 27th and 30th Divisions, grouped under II Corps command, were loaned during the desperate days of spring , fought with the British/Australian/Canadian Fourth Army until the end of the war, taking part in the breach of the Hindenburg Line in October).

By May , Pershing had become discontented with Air Service of the American Expeditionary Force, believing staff planning had been inefficient with considerable internal dissension, as well as conflict between its members and those of Pershing's General Staff. Further, aircraft and unit totals lagged far behind those expected. Pershing appointed his former West Point classmate and non-aviator, Major GeneralMason Patrick as the new Chief of Air Service. Considerable house-cleaning of the existing staff resulted from Patrick's appointment, bringing in experienced staff officers to administrate, and tightening up lines of communication.^[74][75]

In October , Pershing saw the need for a dedicated Military Police Corps and the first U.S. Army MP School was established at Autun, France. For this, he is considered the founding father of the United States MPs.^[76]

Because of the effects of trench warfare on soldiers' feet, in January , Pershing oversaw the creation of an improved combat boot, the " Trench Boot," which became known as the "Pershing Boot" upon its introduction.^[77]

American forces first saw serious action during the summer of , contributing eight large divisions, alongside 24 French ones, at the Second Battle of the Marne. Along with the British Fourth Army's victory at Amiens, the Allied victory at the Second Battle of the Marne marked the turning point of World War I on the Western Front.

In August the U.S. First Army had been formed, first under Pershing's direct command and then by Lieutenant General Hunter Liggett, when the U.S. Second Army under Lieutenant General Robert Bullard was created. After a quick victory at Saint-Mihiel, east of Verdun, some of the more bullish AEF commanders had hoped to push on eastwards to Metz, but this did not fit in with the plans of the Allied Supreme Commander, Marshal Foch, for three simultaneous offensives into the "bulge" of the Western Front (the other two being the Fourth Army's breach of the Hindenburg Line and an Anglo-Belgian offensive, led by Plumer's Second Army, in Flanders). Instead, the AEF was required to redeploy and, aided by French tanks, launched a major offensive northwards in very difficult terrain at Meuse-Argonne. Initially enjoying numerical odds of eight to one, this offensive eventually engaged 35 or 40 of the or so German divisions on the Western Front, although to put this in perspective, around half the German divisions were engaged on the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) sector at the time.

Pershing on the front page of the first issue of Stars and Stripes, February 8,

The offensive was marked by a Pershing failure, specifically his reliance on massed infantry attacks with little artillery support led to high casualty rates in the capturing of three key points. This was despite the AEF facing only second-line German troops after the decision by Erich Ludendorff, the German Chief of Staff, to withdraw to the Hindenburg Line on October 3–and in notable contrast to the simultaneous British breakthrough of the Hindenburg Line in the north. Pershing was subsequently forced to reorganize the AEF with the creation of the Second Army, and to step down as the commander of the First Army.^[78]

When he arrived in Europe, Pershing had openly scorned the slow trench warfare of the previous three years on the Western Front, believing that American soldiers' skill with the rifle would enable them to avoid costly and senseless fighting over a small area of no-man's land. This was regarded as unrealistic by British and French commanders, and (privately) by a number of Americans such as Army Chief of Staff General Tasker Bliss and even Liggett. Even German generals were negative, with Ludendorff dismissing Pershing's strategic efforts in the Meuse-Argonne offensive by recalling how "the attacks of the youthful American troops broke down with the heaviest losses".^[79] The AEF had performed well in the relatively open warfare of the Second Battle of the Marne, but the eventual American casualties against German defensive positions in the Argonne (roughly , American casualties in six weeks, against 35 or 40 German divisions) were not noticeably better than those of the Franco-British offensive on the Somme two years earlier (, casualties in four and a half months, versus 50 or so German divisions). More ground was gained, but by this stage of the war the German Army was in worse shape than in previous years.

Some writers^[80] have speculated that Pershing's frustration at the slow progress through the Argonne was the cause of two incidents which then ensued. First, he ordered the U.S. First Army to take "the honor" of recapturing Sedan, site of the French defeat in ; the ensuing confusion (an order was issued that "boundaries were not to be considered binding") exposed American troops to danger not only from the French on their left, but even from one another, as the 1st Division tacked westward by night across the path of the 42nd Division (accounts differ as to whether Brigadier GeneralDouglas MacArthur, then commanding the 84th Brigade of the 42nd Division, was really mistaken for a German officer and arrested). Liggett, who had been away from headquarters the previous day, had to sort out the mess and implement the instructions from the Allied Supreme Command, Marshal Foch, allowing the French to recapture the city; he later recorded that this was the only time during the war in which he lost his temper.

Second, Pershing sent an unsolicited letter to the Allied Supreme War Council, demanding that the Germans not be given an armistice and that instead, the Allies should push on and obtain an unconditional surrender.^[81] Although in later years, many, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt, felt that Pershing had been correct, at the time, this was a breach of political authority. Pershing narrowly escaped a serious reprimand from Wilson's aide, "Colonel" Edward M. House, and later apologized.^{[citation needed]}

General Pershing decorating soldiers in Trier,

At the time of the Armistice, another Franco-American offensive was due to start on November 14, thrusting towards Metz and into Lorraine, to take place simultaneously with further BEF advances through Belgium.

In his memoirs, Pershing claimed that the American breakout from the Argonne at the start of November was the decisive event leading to the German acceptance of an armistice, because it made untenable the Antwerp–Meuse line. This is probably an exaggeration; the outbreak of civil unrest and naval mutiny in Germany, the collapse of Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, and particularly Austria-Hungary following Allied victories in Salonika, Syria, and Italy, and the Allied victories on the Western Front were among a series of events in the autumn of which made it clear that Allied victory was inevitable, and diplomatic inquiries about an armistice had been going on throughout October. President Wilson was keen to tie matters up before the mid-term elections,^{[citation needed]} and as the other Allies were running low on supplies and manpower,^[82] they followed Wilson's lead.^{[citation needed]}

Pershing and his General Staff at Headquarters, Chaumont.

American successes were largely credited to Pershing, and he became the most celebrated American leader of the war. MacArthur saw Pershing as a desk soldier, and the relationship between the two men deteriorated by the end of the war. Similar criticism of senior commanders by the younger generation of officers (the future generals of World War II) was made in the British and other armies, but in fairness to Pershing, although it was not uncommon for brigade commanders to serve near the front and even be killed, the state of communications in World War I made it more practical for senior generals to command from the rear. He controversially ordered his troops to continue fighting before the signed Armistice took effect. This resulted in 3, American casualties on the last day of the war, an act which was regarded as murder by a few officers under his command. Pershing doubted the German's good faith, and most of his contemporaries took the view he expressed to the House Committee on Military Affairs in his testimony on November 5,

“When the subject of the armistice was under discussion we did not know what the purpose of it was definitely, whether it was something proposed by the German High Command to gain time or whether they were sincere in their desire to have an armistice; and the mere discussion of an armistice would not be sufficient grounds for any judicious commander to relax his military activities….No one could possibly know when the armistice was to be signed, or what hour be fixed for the cessation of hostilities so that the only thing for us to do, and which I did as commander in chief of the American forces, and which Marshal Foch did as commander in chief of the Allied armies was to continue the military activities….”^[83]

The year of also saw a personal health struggle for Pershing as he was sickened during the flu pandemic, but unlike many who were not so fortunate, Pershing survived.^[84] He rode his horse, Kidron, in the Paris victory parade in ^[85]

Later career[edit]

Gen. Pershing as Army Chief of Staff

In September , in recognition of his distinguished service during World War I, the U.S. Congress authorized the President to promote Pershing to General of the Armies of the United States, the highest rank possible for any member of the United States armed forces, which was created especially for him.^[86] (In , Congress authorized President Gerald Ford to posthumously promote George Washington to this rank as part of the United States Bicentennial; Washington previously held the rank of General in the Continental Army, and wore a three-star insignia;^[87] his posthumous appointment to General of the Armies rank and the specific wording of the authorizing statute, Public Law ,^[88] of October , ensured that Washington would always be considered the U.S. Army's highest-ranking officer.)^[89][90] Pershing was authorized to create his insignia for the new rank and chose to wear four gold stars^{[91][92][93][94]} for the rest of his career, which distinguished his insignia from the four (temporary) silver stars worn by Army Chiefs of Staff of the s and early s.^[95]

In , Pershing created the Military Order of the World War as an officer's fraternity for veterans of the First World War, modeled after the Military Order of Foreign Wars. Both organizations still exist today and welcome new officer members to their ranks. Pershing himself would join the MOFW in

There was a movement to draft Pershing as a candidate for president in ; he refused to campaign, but indicated that he "wouldn't decline to serve" if the people wanted him.^[96] Though Pershing was a Republican, many of his party's leaders considered him too closely tied to the policies of the Democratic Party's President Wilson.^[97] Another general, Leonard Wood, was the early Republican front runner, but the nomination went to Senator Warren G. Harding

First page of The first Part of Henry the Sixt from the First Folio ().

Henry VI, Part 1, often referred to as 1 Henry VI, is a history play by William Shakespeare—possibly in collaboration with Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Nashe—believed to have been written in It is set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England.

Whereas Henry VI, Part 2 deals with the King's inability to quell the bickering of his nobles and the inevitability of armed conflict and Henry VI, Part 3 deals with the horrors of that conflict, Henry VI, Part 1 deals with the loss of England's French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and petty jealousy.

Although the Henry VI trilogy may not have been written in chronological order, the three plays are often grouped together with Richard III to form a tetralogy covering the entire Wars of the Roses saga, from the death of Henry V in to the rise to power of Henry VII in It was the success of this sequence of plays that firmly established Shakespeare's reputation as a playwright.

Some regard Henry VI, Part 1 as the weakest of Shakespeare's plays.^[1] Along with Titus Andronicus, it is generally considered one of the strongest candidates for evidence that Shakespeare collaborated with other dramatists early in his career.

Characters[edit]

Synopsis[edit]

Frederick and Alfred Heath engraving of Scene in the Temple Garden by John Pettie ()

The play begins with the funeral of Henry V, who has died unexpectedly in his prime. As his brothers, the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, and his uncle, the Duke of Exeter, lament his passing and express doubt as to whether his son (the as yet uncrowned heir apparent Henry VI) is capable of running the country in such tumultuous times, word arrives of military setbacks in France. A rebellion, led by the Dauphin Charles, is gaining momentum, and several major towns have already been lost. Additionally, Lord Talbot, Constable of France, has been captured. Realising a critical time is at hand, Bedford immediately prepares himself to head to France and take command of the army, Gloucester remains in charge in England, and Exeter sets out to prepare young Henry for his forthcoming coronation.

Meanwhile, in Orléans, the English army is laying siege to Charles' forces. Inside the city, the Bastard of Orléans approaches Charles and tells him of a young woman who claims to have seen visions and knows how to defeat the English. Charles summons the woman, Joan la Pucelle (i.e. Joan of Arc). To test her resolve, he challenges her to single combat. Upon her victory, he immediately places her in command of the army. Outside the city, the newly arrived Bedford negotiates the release of Talbot, but immediately, Joan launches an attack. The French forces win, forcing the English back, but Talbot and Bedford engineer a sneak attack on the city, and gain a foothold within the walls, causing the French leaders to flee.

Back in England, a petty quarrel between Richard Plantagenet and the Duke of Somerset has expanded to involve the whole court. Richard and Somerset ask their fellow nobles to pledge allegiance to one of them, and as such the lords select either red or white roses to indicate the side they are on. Richard then goes to see his uncle, Edmund Mortimer, imprisoned in the Tower of London. Mortimer tells Richard the history of their family's conflict with the king's family—how they helped Henry Bolingbroke seize power from Richard II, but were then shoved into the background; and how Henry V had Richard's father (Richard of Conisburgh) executed and his family stripped of all its lands and monies. Mortimer also tells Richard that he himself is the rightful heir to the throne, and that when he dies, Richard will be the true heir, not Henry. Amazed at these revelations, Richard determines to attain his birthright, and vows to have his family's dukedom restored. After Mortimer dies, Richard presents his petition to the recently crowned Henry, who agrees to reinstate the Plantagenet's title, making Richard 3rd Duke of York. Henry then leaves for France, accompanied by Gloucester, Exeter, Winchester, Richard and Somerset.

In France, within a matter of hours, the French retake and then lose the city of Rouen. After the battle, Bedford dies, and Talbot assumes direct command of the army. The Dauphin is horrified at the loss of Rouen, but Joan tells him not to worry. She then persuades the powerful Duke of Burgundy, who had been fighting for the English, to switch sides, and join the French. Meanwhile, Henry arrives in Paris and upon learning of Burgundy's betrayal, he sends Talbot to speak with him. Henry then pleads for Richard and Somerset to put aside their conflict, and, unaware of the implications of his actions, he chooses a red rose, symbolically aligning himself with Somerset and alienating Richard. Prior to returning to England, in an effort to secure peace between Somerset and Richard, Henry places Richard in command of the infantry and Somerset in command of the cavalry. Meanwhile, Talbot approaches Bordeaux, but the French army swings around and traps him. Talbot sends word for reinforcements, but the conflict between Richard and Somerset leads them to second guess one another, and neither of them send any, both blaming the other for the mix-up. The English army is subsequently destroyed, and both Talbot and his son are killed.

After the battle, Joan's visions desert her, and she is captured by Richard and burned at the stake. At the same time, urged on by Pope Eugenius IV and the Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, Henry sues for peace. The French listen to the English terms, under which Charles is to be a viceroy to Henry and reluctantly agree, but only with the intention of breaking their oath at a later date and expelling the English from France. Meanwhile, the Earl of Suffolk has captured a young French princess, Margaret of Anjou, whom he intends to marry to Henry in order that he can dominate the king through her. Travelling back to England, he attempts to persuade Henry to marry Margaret. Gloucester advises Henry against the marriage, as Margaret's family is not rich and the marriage would not be advantageous to his position as king. But Henry is taken in by Suffolk's description of Margaret's beauty, and he agrees to the proposal. Suffolk then heads back to France to bring Margaret to England as Gloucester worryingly ponders what the future may hold.

Sources[edit]

Title page from the edition of Edward Hall's The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York.

Shakespeare's primary source for 1 Henry VI was Edward Hall's The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (). Also, as with most of Shakespeare's chronicle histories, Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (; 2nd edition ) was also consulted.^[3] Holinshed based much of his Wars of the Roses information in the Chronicles on Hall's information in Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families, even to the point of reproducing large portions of it verbatim. However, there are enough differences between Hall and Holinshed to establish that Shakespeare must have consulted both of them.

For example, Shakespeare must have used Hall for the scene where Gloucester is attempting to gain access to the Tower, and Woodville tells him that the order not to admit anyone came from Winchester. Dismayed, Gloucester refers to Winchester as "that haughty prelate,/Whom Henry, our late sovereign, ne're could brook" (–24). Only in Hall is there any indication that Henry V had a problem with Winchester. In Holinshed, there is nothing to suggest any disagreement or conflict between them.^[4] Another example of Shakespeare's use of Hall is found when Sir Thomas Gargrave is injured by the artillery strike at Orléans (). In the play, he dies immediately, and the rest of the scene focuses on the death of the more senior soldier Salisbury. Likewise, in Hall, Gargrave dies immediately after the attack. In Holinshed, however, Gargrave takes two days to die (as he did in reality). The semi-comic scene where the French leaders are forced to flee Orléans half-dressed (dramatised in ) also seems based on an incident reported only in Hall.^[5] When discussing the English retaking of Le Mans in , Hall writes, "The French, suddenly taken, were so amazed in so much that some of them, being not out of their beds, got up in their shirts."^[6] Another incident involving Gloucester and Winchester is also unique to Hall. During their debate in Act 3, Scene 1, Gloucester accuses Winchester of attempting to have him assassinated on London Bridge. Hall mentions this assassination attempt, explaining that it was supposed to have taken place at the Southwark end of the bridge in an effort to prevent Gloucester from joining Henry V in Eltham Palace.^[7] In Holinshed however, there is no reference to any such incident. Another incident possibly taken from Hall is found in Act 3, Scene 2, where Joan and the French soldiers disguise themselves as peasants and sneak into Rouen. This is not an historical event, and it is not recorded in either Hall or Holinshed. However, a very similar such incident is recorded in Hall, where he reports of the capture of Cornhill Castle in Cornhill-on-Tweed by the English in ^[8]

On the other hand, some aspects of the play are unique to Holinshed. For example, in the opening scene, as word arrives in England of the rebellion in France, Exeter says to his fellow peers, "Remember, Lords, your oaths to Henry sworn:/Either to quell the Dauphin utterly,/Or bring him in obedience to your yoke" (–). Only in Holinshed is it reported that on his deathbed, Henry V elicited vows from Bedford, Gloucester and Exeter that they would never willingly surrender France, and would never allow the Dauphin to become king.^[9] Another piece of information unique to Holinshed is seen when Charles compares Joan to the Old Testament prophetess Deborah (). According to Judges 4 and 5, Deborah masterminded Barak's surprise victory against the Canaanite army led by Sisera, which had suppressed the Israelites for over twenty years. No such comparison is found in Hall.^[10] Another piece of information unique to Holinshed occurs when the Master Gunner mentions that the English have taken control of some of the suburbs of Orléans (). Holinshed reports that the English captured several of the suburbs on the other side of the Loire, something not found in Hall.^[11]

Date and text[edit]

Date[edit]

The most important evidence for dating 1 Henry VI is the Diary of Philip Henslowe, which records a performance of a play by Lord Strange's Men called Harey Vj (i.e. Henry VI) on 3 March at the Rose Theatre in Southwark. Henslowe refers to the play as "ne" (which most critics take to mean "new", although it could be an abbreviation for the Newington Butts theatre, which Henslow may have owned^[12]) and mentions that it had fifteen performances and earned £s.8d, meaning it was extremely successful.^[a]Harey Vj is usually accepted as being 1 Henry VI for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely to have been either 2 Henry VI or 3 Henry VI, as they were published in and , respectively, with the titles under which they would have originally been performed, so as to ensure higher sales. As neither of them appear under the title Harey Vj, the play seen by Henslowe is unlikely to be either of them. Additionally, as Gary Taylor points out, Henslowe tended to identify sequels, but not first parts, to which he referred by the general title. As such, "Harey Vj could not be a Part Two or Part Three but could easily be a Part One."^[13] The only other option is that Harey Vj is a now lost play.

That Harey Vj is not a lost play, however, seems to be confirmed by a reference in Thomas Nashe's Piers Penniless his Supplication to the Devil (entered into the Stationers' Register on 8 August ), which supports the theory that Harey Vj is 1 Henry VI. Nashe praises a play that features Lord Talbot: "How would it have joyed brave Talbot (the terror of the French), to think that after he had lain two hundred years in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators (at least), who in the tragedian that represents his person imagine they behold him fresh bleeding." It is thought that Nashe is here referring to Harey Vj, i.e. 1 Henry VI, as there is no other candidate for a play featuring Talbot from this time period (although again, there is the slight possibility that both Henslowe and Nashe are referring to a now lost play).

If Nashe's comment is accepted as evidence that the play seen by Henslowe was 1 Henry VI, to have been on stage as a new play in March , it must have been written in

There is a separate question concerning the date of composition, however. Due to the publication in March of a quarto version of 2 Henry VI (under the title The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Jack Cade: and the Duke of Yorke's first claim unto the crowne)^[14] and an octavo version of 3 Henry VI in (under the title The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the Whole Contention betweene the two Houses, Lancaster and Yorke),^[15] neither of which refer to 1 Henry VI, some critics have argued that 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI were written prior to 1 Henry VI. This theory was first suggested by E.K. Chambers in and revised by John Dover Wilson in The theory is that The Contention and True Tragedy were originally conceived as a two-part play, and due to their success, a prequel was created. Obviously, the title of The Contention, where it is referred to as The First Part is a large part of this theory, but various critics have offered further pieces of evidence to suggest 1 Henry VI was not the first play written in the trilogy. R.B. McKerrow, for example, argues that "if 2 Henry VI was originally written to continue the first part, it seems utterly incomprehensible that it should contain no allusion to the prowess of Talbot."^[16] McKerrow also comments on the lack of reference to the symbolic use of roses in 2 Henry VI, whereas in 1 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, they are mentioned numerous times. McKerrow concludes that this suggests 1 Henry VI was written closer to 3 Henry VI, and as we know 3 Henry VI was definitely a sequel, it means that 1 Henry VI must have been written last, i.e., Shakespeare only conceived of the use of the roses while writing 3 Henry VI and then incorporated the idea into his prequel. Eliot Slater comes to the same conclusion in his statistical examination of the vocabulary of all three Henry VI plays, where he argues that 1 Henry VI was written either immediately before or immediately after 3 Henry VI, hence it must have been written last.^[17] Likewise, Gary Taylor, in his analysis of the authorship of 1 Henry VI, argues that the many discrepancies between 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI (such as the lack of reference to Talbot) coupled with similarities in the vocabulary, phraseology, and tropes of 1 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, suggest 1 Henry VI was probably written last.^[18]

One argument against this theory is that 1 Henry VI is the weakest of the trilogy, and therefore, logic would suggest it was written first. This argument suggests that Shakespeare could only have created such a weak play if it was his first attempt to turn his chronicle sources into drama. In essence, he was unsure of his way, and as such, 1 Henry VI was a trial-run of sorts, making way for the more accomplished 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI. Emrys Jones is one notable critic who supports this view.^[19] The standard rebuke to this theory, and the one used by Dover Wilson in , is that 1 Henry VI is significantly weaker than the other two plays not because it was written first but because it was co-authored and may have been Shakespeare's first attempt to collaborate with other writers. As such, all of the play's problems can be attributed to its co-authors rather than Shakespeare himself, who may have had a relatively limited hand in its composition. In this sense, the fact that 1 Henry VI is the weakest of the trilogy has nothing to do with when it may have been written, but instead concerns only how it was written.^[20]

As this implies, there is no critical consensus on this issue. Samuel Johnson, writing in his edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare, pre-empted the debate and argued that the plays were written in sequence: "It is apparent that [2 Henry VI] begins where the former ends, and continues the series of transactions, of which it presupposes the first part already written. This is a sufficient proof that the second and third parts were not written without dependence on the first."^[21] Numerous more recent scholars continue to uphold Johnson's argument. E. M. W. Tillyard, for example, writing in , believes the plays were written in order, as does Andrew S. Cairncross in his editions of all three plays for the 2nd series of the Arden Shakespeare (, and ). E.A.J. Honigmann also agrees, in his "early start" theory of (which argues that Shakespeare's first play was Titus Andronicus, which Honigmann posits was written in ). Likewise, Michael Hattaway, in both his New Cambridge Shakespeare edition of 1 Henry VI and his edition of 2 Henry VI, argues that the evidence suggests 1 Henry VI was written first. In his introduction to Henry VI: Critical Essays, Thomas A. Pendleton makes a similar argument, as does Roger Warren in his edition of 2 Henry VI for the Oxford Shakespeare.

On the other hand, Edward Burns, in his Arden Shakespeare 3rd series edition of 1 Henry VI, and Ronald Knowles, in his Arden Shakespeare 3rd series edition of 2 Henry VI, make the case that 2 Henry VI probably preceded 1 Henry VI. Similarly, Randall Martin, in his Oxford Shakespeare edition of 3 Henry VI, argues that 1 Henry VI was almost certainly written last. In his Oxford edition of 1 Henry VI, Michael Taylor agrees with Martin. Additionally, it is worth noting that in the Oxford Shakespeare: Complete Works of and the 2nd edition of , and in the Norton Shakespeare of and again in , both 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI precede 1 Henry VI.

Ultimately, the question of the order of composition remains unanswered, and the only thing that critics can agree on is that all three plays (in whatever order) were written by early at the latest.

Text[edit]

The text of the play was not published until the First Folio, under the title The first part of Henry the Sixt.

When it came to be called Part 1 is unclear, although most critics tend to assume it was the invention of the First Folio editors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, as there are no references to the play under the title Part 1, or any derivative thereof, prior to ^[b]

Analysis and criticism[edit]

Critical history[edit]

Some critics argue that the Henry VI trilogy were the first plays based on recent English history, and, as such, they deserve an elevated position in the canon and a more central role in Shakespearean criticism. According to F. P. Wilson, for example, "There is no certain evidence that any dramatist before the defeat of the Spanish Armada in dared to put upon the public stage a play based upon English history [] so far as we know, Shakespeare was the first."^[22] However, not all critics agree with Wilson here. For example, Michael Taylor argues that there were at least thirty-nine history plays prior to , including the two-part Christopher Marlowe play Tamburlaine (), Thomas Lodge's The Wounds of Civil War (), the anonymous The Troublesome Reign of King John (), Edmund Ironside ( – also anonymous), Robert Green's Selimus () and another anonymous play, The True Tragedy of Richard III (). Paola Pugliatti however argues that the case may be somewhere between Wilson and Taylor's argument: "Shakespeare may not have been the first to bring English history before the audience of a public playhouse, but he was certainly the first to treat it in the manner of a mature historian rather than in the manner of a worshipper of historical, political and religious myth."^[23]

Another issue often discussed amongst critics is the quality of the play. Along with 3 Henry VI, 1 Henry VI has traditionally been seen as one of Shakespeare's weakest works, with critics often citing the amount of violence as indicative of Shakespeare's artistic immaturity and inability to handle his chronicle sources, especially when compared to the more nuanced and far less violent second historical tetralogy (Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V). For example, critics such as E. M. W. Tillyard,^[24] Irving Ribner^[25] and A. P. Rossiter^[26] have all claimed that the play violates neoclassical precepts of drama, which dictate that violence and battle should never be shown mimetically on stage, but should always be reported diegetically in dialogue. This view was based on traditional notions of the distinction between high and low art, a distinction based partly upon Philip Sidney's An Apology for Poetry (). Based on the work of Horace, Sidney criticised Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville's Gorboduc () for showing too many battles and being too violent when it would have been more artistic to verbally represent such scenes. The belief was that any play that showed violence was crude, appealing only to the ignorant masses, and was therefore low art. On the other hand, any play that elevated itself above such direct representation of violence and instead relied on the writer's ability to verbalise and his skill for diegesis, was considered artistically superior and, therefore, high art. Writing in , Ben Jonson commented in The Masque of Blackness that showing battles on stage was only "for the vulgar, who are better delighted with that which pleaseth the eye, than contenteth the ear."^[27] Based upon these theories, 1 Henry VI, with its numerous on-stage skirmishes and multiple scenes of violence and murder, was considered a coarse play with little to recommend it to the intelligentsia.

On the other hand, however, writers like Thomas Heywood and Thomas Nashe praised battle scenes in general as often being intrinsic to the play and not simply vulgar distractions for the illiterate. In Piers Penniless (), Nashe praised the didactic element of drama that depicted battle and martial action, arguing that such plays were a good way of teaching both history and military tactics to the masses; in such plays "our forefather's valiant acts (that have lain long buried in rusty brass and worm-eaten books) are revived." Nashe also argued that plays that depict glorious national causes from the past rekindle a patriotic fervour that has been lost in "the puerility of an insipid present," and that such plays "provide a rare exercise of virtue in reproof to these degenerate effeminate days of ours."^[28] Similarly, in An Apology for Actors (), Heywood writes, "So bewitching a thing is lively and well-spirited action, that it hath power to new mould the hearts of the spectators, and fashion them to the shape of any noble and notable attempt."^[29] More recently, Michael Goldman has argued that battle scenes are vital to the overall movement and purpose of the play; "the sweep of athletic bodies across the stage is used not only to provide an exciting spectacle but to focus and clarify, to render dramatic, the entire unwieldy chronicle."^[30]

Questions of originality and quality, however, are not the only critical disagreement 1 Henry VI has provoked. Numerous other issues divide critics, not the least of which concerns the authorship of the play.

Attribution studies[edit]

A number of Shakespeare's early plays have been examined for signs of co-authorship (The Taming of the Shrew, The Contention [i.e., 2 Henry VI], and True Tragedy [i.e., 3 Henry VI], for example), but, along with Titus Andronicus, 1 Henry VI stands as the most likely to have been a collaboration between Shakespeare and at least one other dramatist whose identity remains unknown. Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, George Peele, Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd are common proposals.^[31]

The belief that Shakespeare may have written very little of 1 Henry VI first came from Edmond Malone in his edition of Shakespeare's plays, which included A Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI, in which he argued that the large number of classical allusions in the play was more characteristic of Nashe, Peele, or Greene than of early Shakespeare. Malone also argued that the language itself indicated someone other than Shakespeare. This view was dominant until , when Peter Alexander challenged it.^[32] Since then, scholars have remained divided on the issue. In , E. M. W. Tillyard argued that Shakespeare most likely wrote the entire play; in , John Dover Wilson claimed Shakespeare wrote little of it.^[33]

In perhaps the most exhaustive analysis of the debate, the article, "Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of Henry the Sixth, Part One", Gary Taylor suggests that approximately % of the play (3, out of 20, words) was written by Shakespeare. Taylor argues that Nashe almost certainly wrote all of Act 1, but he attributes to Shakespeare , , , , , , and through line Taylor also suggests that the Temple Garden scene (), in which the rival factions identify themselves through the selection of red and white roses, may have been a later addition. Scenes to include a series of rhyming couplets between Talbot and his son (–), which, while unusual to modern ears, apparently had "an electric effect upon early audiences."^[34] Traditionally, these lines have often been pinpointed as one of the most obviously non-Shakespearean sections of the play. Roger Warren, for instance, argues that these scenes are written in a language "so banal they must be non-Shakespearean."^[35]

Other than Taylor, however, several other critics also disagree with Warren's assessment of the quality of the language, arguing that the passages are more complex and accomplished than has hitherto been allowed for. Michael Taylor, for example, argues that "the rhyming dialogue between the Talbots – often stichomythic – shapes a kind of noble flyting match, a competition as to who can out-oblige the other."^[36] Similarly, Alexander Leggatt argues that the passages are a perfect blend of form and content: "The relentless click-click of the rhymes reinforces the point that for John Talbot, all arguments are arguments for death; as every other line ending is countered by a rhyme, so every argument Talbot gives John to flee becomes an argument for staying."^[37] Taylor and Leggatt are here arguing that the passages are more accomplished than most critics tend to give them credit for, thus offering a counter-argument to the theory that they are so poorly written, they could not possibly be by Shakespeare. In this sense, his failure to use couplets elsewhere in a tragic passage^[36] can thus be attributed to an aesthetic choice on his part, rather than offered as evidence of co-authorship.

Other scenes in the play have also been identified as offering possible evidence of co-authorship. For example, the opening lines of Act 1, Scene 2 have been argued to show clear evidence of Nashe's hand. The scene begins with Charles proclaiming, "Mars his true moving – even as in the heavens/So in the earth – to this day is not known" (manicapital.com1–2). Some critics believe that this statement is paraphrased in Nashe's later pamphlet Have with You to Saffron-Walden (), which contains the line, "You are as ignorant as the astronomers are in the true movings of Mars, which to this day, they never could attain to."^[38] The problem with this theory however, as Michael Hattaway has pointed out, is that there is no reason as to why Nashe could not simply be paraphrasing a play he had no involvement in—a common practice in Elizabethan literature. Shakespeare and Marlowe, for example, often paraphrased each another's plays.

Nasheeb Sheehan offers more evidence, again suggestive of Nashe, when Alençon compares the English to "Samsons and Goliases" (manicapital.com). The word 'Golias', Sheehan argues, is unusual insofar as all bibles in Shakespeare's day spelt the name 'Goliath'; it was only in much older editions of the Bible that it was spelt 'Golias'. Sheehan concludes that the use of the arcane spelling is more indicative of Nashe, who was prone to using older spellings of certain words, than Shakespeare, who was less likely to do so.^[39]

However, evidence of Shakespeare's authorship has also been found within the play. For example, Samuel Johnson argued that the play was more competently written than King John, Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V, and, therefore, not attributing it to Shakespeare based on quality made little sense. A similar point is made by Lawrence V. Ryan, who suggests that the play fits so well into Shakespeare's overall style, with an intricate integration of form and content, that it was most likely written by him alone.^[40]

Another aspect of the debate is the actual likelihood of Shakespeare collaborating at all. Some critics, such as Hattaway and Cairncross, argue that it is unlikely that a young, up-and-coming dramatist trying to make a name for himself would have collaborated with other authors so early in his career. On the other hand, Michael Taylor suggests "it is not difficult to construct an imaginary scenario that has a harassed author calling on friends and colleagues to help him construct an unexpectedly commissioned piece in a hurry."^[41]

Another argument that challenges the co-authorship idea is that the basic theory of co-authorship was originally hypothesised in the 18th and 19th centuries due to a distaste for the treatment of Joan. Critics were uncomfortable attributing such a harsh depiction to Shakespeare, so they embraced the co-authorship theory to 'clear his name', suggesting that he could not have been responsible for the merciless characterization.^[42]

As with the question of the order in which the trilogy was written, twentieth century editors and scholars remain staunchly divided on the question of authorship. Edward Burns, for example, in his edition of the play for the Arden Shakespeare 3rd series, suggests that it is highly unlikely that Shakespeare wrote alone, and, throughout his introduction and commentary, he refers to the writer not as Shakespeare but as 'the dramatists'. He also suggests that the play should be more properly called Harry VI, by Shakespeare, Nashe and others.^[43] Burns' predecessor however, Andrew S. Cairncross, editor of the play for the Arden Shakespeare 2nd series in , ascribes the entire play to Shakespeare, as does Lawrence V. Ryan in his Signet Classic Shakespeare edition, and Michael Hattaway in his New Cambridge Shakespeare edition of In his edition of the play, Dover Wilson, on the other hand, argued that the play was almost entirely written by others, and that Shakespeare actually had little to do with its composition. Speaking during a radio presentation of The Contention and True Tragedy, which he produced, Dover Wilson argued that he had not included 1 Henry VI because it is a "patchwork in which Shakespeare collaborated with inferior dramatists."^[44]

On the other hand, Michael Taylor believes that Shakespeare almost certainly wrote the entire play, as does J. J. M. Tobin, who, in his essay in Henry VI: Critical Essays (), argues the similarities to Nashe do not reveal the hand of Nashe at work in the composition of the play, but instead reveal Shakespeare imitating Nashe.^[45] More recently, in , Paul J. Vincent has re-examined the question in light of recent research into the Elizabethan theatre, concluding that 1 Henry VI is Shakespeare's partial revision of a play by Nashe (Act 1) and an unknown playwright (Acts 2–5) and that it was the original, non-Shakespearean, play that was first performed on 3 March Shakespeare's work in the play, which was most likely composed in , can be found in Act 2 (scene 4) and Act 4 (scenes 2–5 and the first 32 lines of scene 7).^[46] In , Vincent's authorship findings, especially with regard to Nashe's authorship of Act 1, were supported overall by Brian Vickers, who agrees with the theory of co-authorship and differs only slightly over the extent of Shakespeare's contribution to the play.^[47]

In , Oxford University Press announced that it would credit Christopher Marlowe as co-author alongside Shakespeare for all three Henry VI plays in its New Oxford Shakespeare series.^[48][49] In the New Oxford Shakespeare,1 Henry VI was specifically credited as being written by "Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nashe, and Anonymous, adapted by William Shakespeare".^[50]

Language[edit]

The very functioning of language itself is literally a theme in the play, with particular emphasis placed on its ability to represent by means of signs (semiosis), the power of language to sway, the aggressive potential of language, the failure of language to adequately describe reality and the manipulation of language so as to hide the truth.

The persuasive power of language is first alluded to by Charles, who tells Joan after she has assured him she can end the siege of Orléans, "Thou hast astonished me with thy high terms" (). This sense is repeated when the Countess of Auvergne is wondering about Talbot and says to her servant, "Great is the rumour of this dreadful knight,/And his achievements of no less account./Fain would mine eyes be witness with mine ears,/To give their censure of these rare reports" (–10). Like Charles, Auvergne has been astonished with the 'high terms' bestowed on Talbot, and now she wishes to see if the report and the reality conflate. Later in the play, the persuasive power of language becomes important for Joan, as she uses it as a subterfuge to sneak into Rouen, telling her men, "Be wary how you place your words;/Talk like the vulgar sort of market men/That come to gather money for their corn" (). Later, she uses language to persuade Burgundy to join with the Dauphin against the English. As Burgundy realises he is succumbing to her rhetoric, he muses to himself, "Either she hath bewitched me with her words,/Or nature makes me suddenly relent" (–59). Here, language is shown to be so powerful as to act on Burgundy the same way Nature itself would act, to the point where he is unsure if he has been persuaded by a natural occurrence or by Joan's words. Language is thus presented as capable of transforming ideology. As Joan finishes her speech, Burgundy again attests to the power of her language, "I am vanquish'd. These haughty words of hers/Have battered me like roaring canon-shot,/And made me almost yield upon my knees" (–80). Later, something similar happens with Henry, who agrees to marry Margaret merely because of Suffolk's description of her. In a line that echoes Burgundy's, Henry queries what it is that has prompted him to agree to Suffolk's suggestion: "Whether it be through force of your report,/My noble lord of Suffolk, or for that/My tender youth was never yet attaint/With any passion of inflaming love, I cannot tell" (–83). Here, again, the power of language is shown to be so strong as to be confused with a natural phenomenon.

Language can also be employed aggressively. For example, after the death of Salisbury, when Talbot first hears about Joan, he contemptuously refers to her and Charles as "Puzel or pussel, dolphin or dogfish" (). In French, 'puzel' means slut, and 'pussel' is a variation of 'pucelle' (meaning virgin), but with an added negative connotation. These two words, 'puzel' and 'pussel', are both puns on Joan's name (Pucelle), thus showing Talbot's utter contempt for her.^[c] Similarly, the use of the word 'dolphin' to describe the Dauphin carries negative and mocking connotations, as does the use of the word 'dogfish', a member of the shark family considered dishonourable scavengers, preying on anything and anyone.^[51] Again, Talbot is showing his contempt for Charles' position by exposing it to mockery with some simple word play.^[d] Other examples of words employed aggressively are seen when the English reclaim Orléans, and a soldier chases the half-dressed French leaders from the city, declaring "The cry of 'Talbot' serves me for a sword,/For I have loaden me with many spoils,/Using no other weapon but his name" (–83). A similar notion is found when the Countess of Auvergne meets Talbot, and muses, "Is this the Talbot so much feared abroad/That with his name the mothers still their babes" (–16). Here words (specifically Talbot's name) literally become weapons, and are used directly to strike fear into the enemy.

However although words are occasionally shown to be powerful and deeply persuasive, they also often fail in their signifying role, exposed as incapable of adequately representing reality. This idea is introduced by Gloucester at Henry V's funeral, where he laments that words cannot encompass the life of such a great king: "What should I say? His deeds exceed all speech" (). Later, when Gloucester and Winchester confront one another outside the Tower of London, Gloucester champions the power of real action over the power of threatening words: "I will not answer thee with words but blows" (). Similarly, after the French capture Rouen and refuse to meet the English army in the battlefield, Bedford asserts, "O let no words, but deeds, revenge this treason" (). Another example of the failure of language is found when Suffolk finds himself lost for words whilst attempting to woo Margaret: "Fain would I woo her, yet I dare not speak./I'll call for pen and ink and write my mind./Fie, de la Pole, disable not thyself!/Hast not a tongue?" (–24). Later, Joan's words, so successful during the play in convincing others to support her, explicitly fail to save her life, as she is told by Warwick, "Strumpet, thy words condemn thy brat and thee./Use no entreaty, for it is in vain" (–85).

Language as a system is also shown to be open to manipulation. Words can be employed for deceptive purposes, as the representative function of language gives way to deceit. For example, shortly after Charles has accepted Joan as his new commander, Alençon calls into question her sincerity, thus suggesting a possible discrepancy between her words and her actions; "These women are shrewd tempters with their tongues" (). Another example occurs when Henry forces Winchester and Gloucester to put aside their animosity and shake hands. Their public words here stand in diametric opposition to their private intentions;

WINCHESTER
Well, Duke of Gloucester, I will yield to thee
Love for thy love, and hand for hand I give.

He takes Gloucester's hand

GLOUCESTER
(aside) Ay, but I fear me with a hollow heart.
(to others) See here, my friends and loving countrymen,
This token serveth for a flag of truce
Betwixt ourselves and all our followers.
So help me God as I dissemble not.

WINCHESTER
So help me God. (aside) As I intend it not.

(–)

Act 2, Scene 4 is perhaps the most important scene in the play in terms of language, as it is in this scene where Richard introduces the notion of what he calls "dumb significants," something that carries resonance throughout the trilogy. During his debate with Somerset, Richard points out to the lords who are unwilling to openly support either of them, "Since you are tongue tied and loath to speak,/In dumb significants proclaim your thoughts."(ll–26) The dumb significants he refers to are roses—a red rose to join Somerset, a white rose to join Richard. As such, the roses essentially function as symbols, replacing the very need for language. Once all the lords select their roses, these symbolize the houses they represent. Henry chooses a red rose—totally unaware of the implications of his actions, as he does not understand the power the "dumb significants" have.

He places his trust in a more literal type of language, and thus selects a rose in what he thinks is a meaningless gesture—but that does in fact have profound implications. Henry's mistake results directly from his failure to grasp the importance of silent actions and symbolic decisions; "a gesture—especially such an ill-considered one—is worth and makes worthless, a thousand pretty words."^[52]

Themes[edit]

Death of chivalry[edit]

A fundamental theme in the play is the death of chivalry, "the decline of England's empire over France and the accompanying decay of the ideas of feudalism that had sustained the order of the realm."^[53] This is specifically manifested in the character of Talbot, the symbol of a dying breed of men honourably and selflessly devoted to the good of England, whose methods and style of leadership represent the last dying remnants of a now outmoded, feudal gallantry. As such, Michael Taylor refers to him as "the representative of a chivalry that was fast decaying,"^[54] whilst Michael Hattaway sees him as "a figure for the nostalgia that suffuses the play, a dream of simple chivalric virtus like that enacted every year at Elizabeth's Accession Day tilts, a dream of true empire. He is designed to appeal to a popular audience, and his death scene where he calls for troops who do not appear is yet another demonstration of the destructiveness of aristocratic factionalism."^[55]

One of the clearest examples of Talbot's adherence to the codes of chivalry is seen in his response to Fastolf's desertion from the battlefield. As far as Talbot is concerned, Fastolf's actions reveal him as a dishonourable coward who places self-preservation above self-sacrifice, and thus he represents everything wrong with the modern knight. This is in direct contrast to the chivalry that Talbot represents, a chivalry he remembers fondly from days gone by:

TALBOT
I vowed, base knight, when I did meet thee next,
To tear the garter from thy craven's leg,
Which I have done because unworthily
Thou wast install'd in that high degree. –
Pardon me, princely Henry, and the rest.
This dastard, at the Battle of Patay,
When but in all I was six thousand strong,
And that the French were almost ten to one,
Before we met, or that a stroke was given,
Like to a trusty squire did run away;
In which assault we lost twelve hundred men.
Myself and divers gentlemen beside
Were there surprised and taken prisoners.
Then judge, great lords, if I have done amiss,
Or whether that such cowards ought to wear
This ornament of knighthood: yea or no?

GLOUCESTER
To say the truth, this fact was infamous
And ill beseeming any common man,
Much more a knight, a captain, and a leader.

TALBOT
When first this order was ordained, my lords,
Knights of the garter were of noble birth,
Valiant and virtuous, full of haughty courage,
Such as were grown to credit by the wars;
Not fearing death nor shrinking for distress,
But always resolute in most extremes.
He then that is not furnished in this sort
Doth but usurp the sacred name of knight,
Profaning this most honourable order,
And should – if I were worthy to be judge –
Be quite degraded, like a hedge-born swain
That doth presume to boast of gentle blood.

(–44)

Talbot's description of Fastolf's actions stands in direct contrast to the image of an ideal knight, and as such, the ideal and the reality serve to highlight one another, and thus reveal the discrepancy between them.

Similarly, just as Talbot uses knights to represent an ideal past, by remembering how they used to be chivalric, so too does Gloucester in relation to Henry V, who he also sees as representing a glorious and honourable past:

England ne're had a king until his time.
Virtue he had, deserving to command;
His brandished sword did bind men with his beams,
His arms spread wider than a dragon's wings,
His sparkling eyes, replete with wrathful fire,
More dazzled and drove back his enemies
Than midday sun fierce bent against their faces.

(–14)

Henry V has this function throughout much of the play; "he is presented not as a man but as a rhetorical construct fashioned out of hyperbole, as a heroic image or heraldic icon."^[56] He is seen as a representative of a celebrated past that can never be recaptured: "There is in the play a dominant, nostalgic, celebratory reminiscence of Henry V who lives on in the immortality of preternatural legend."^[57]

The play, however, doesn't simply depict the fall of one order, it also depicts the rise of another; "How the nation might have remained true to itself is signified by the words and deeds of Talbot. What she is in danger of becoming is signified by the shortcomings of the French, failings that crop up increasingly amongst Englishman [] also manifest are an English decline towards French effeminacy and the beginnings of reliance upon fraud and cunning rather than manly courage and straightforward manly virtue."^[58] If the old mode of honourable conduct is specifically represented by Talbot and Henry V, the new mode of duplicity and Machiavellianism is represented by Joan, who employs a type of warfare with which Talbot is simply unable to cope. This is seen most clearly when she sneaks into Rouen and subsequently refuses to face Talbot in a battle. Talbot finds this kind of behaviour incomprehensible and utterly dishonourable. As such, he finds himself fighting an enemy who uses tactics he is incapable of understanding; with the French using what he sees as unconventional methods, he proves unable to adapt. This represents one of the ironies in the play's depiction of chivalry; it is the very resoluteness of Talbot's honour and integrity, his insistence in preserving an old code abandoned by all others, which ultimately defeats him; his inability to adjust means he becomes unable to function in the newly established 'dishonourable' context. As such, the play is not entirely nostalgic about chivalry; "so often the tenets of chivalry are mocked by word and action. The play is full of moments of punctured aristocratic hauteur."^[59]

Talbot's mode of chivalry is replaced by politicians concerned only with themselves and their own advancement: Winchester, Somerset, Suffolk, even Richard. As Jane Howell, director of the BBC Shakespeare adaptation argues, "what I was concerned about in the first play [] was that for a long time, the code of the people had been chivalry. But with the death of Talbot, one starts to see a demise of chivalry."^[60]Narcissistic political infighting has supplanted self-sacrificing patriotism and chivalry: "the play charts the disastrous breakdown of civility among the English nobility."^[53] Nobles concerned with personal power above all else have replaced knights concerned only with the empire. As such, by the end of the play, both Talbot and his son lay dead, as does the notion of English chivalry. In this sense then, the play "depicts the deaths of the titanic survivors of an ancien régime."^[61]

Patriotism[edit]

The death of Lord Talbot and his son, John by Alexandre Bida (19th century).

Hand-in-hand with the examination of chivalry with which the play engages is an examination of patriotism. Indeed, some critics argue that patriotism provided the impetus for the play in the first place. England defeated the Spanish Armada in , leading to a short-lived period of international confidence and patriotic pride—but by , the national mood was one of despondency, and as such, 1 Henry VI may have been commissioned to help dispel this mood: "The patriotic emotions to which this play shamelessly appeals resonate at an especially fragile time politically speaking. Frightening memories of the Spanish Armada, or of the Babington Plot of , which led to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots; concerns over a noticeably declining and still unmarried Queen Elizabeth; worries over Catholic recusancy; fear of military involvement in Europe, and, just as disquietingly, in Ireland, combine to make a patriotic response a matter of some urgency. [The play] is a bracing attempt to stiffen the sinews of the English in a time of danger and deceit."^[62]

Evidence of this is seen throughout. For example, the English seem vastly outnumbered in every battle, yet they never give up, and often they prove victorious. Indeed, even when they do lose, the suggestion is often made that it was because of treachery, as only by duplicitous means could their hardiness be overcome. For example, during the Battle of Patay (where Talbot is captured), the messenger reports,

The tenth of August last, this dreadful lord [i.e. Talbot],
Retiring from the siege of Orléans,
Having full scarce six thousand in his troop,
By three-and-twenty thousand of the French
Was round encompass'd and set upon:
No leisure had he to enrank his men.
He wanted pikes to set before his archers;
Instead whereof sharp stakes plucked out of hedges
They pitch'd in the ground confusedly
To keep the horsemen off from breaking in.
More than three hours the fight continu'd,
Where valiant Talbot, above human thought,
Enacted wonders with his sword and lance.
Hundreds he sent to hell, and none durst stand him;
Here, there, and everywhere, enraged he slew.
The French exclaimed the devil was in arms:
All the whole army stood agazed on him.
His soldiers, spying his undaunted spirit,
'À Talbot! À Talbot!' cried out amain,
And rushed into the bowels of the battle.
Here had the conquest fully been sealed up
If Sir John Fastolf had not played the coward.
He, being in the vanguard placed behind,
With purpose to relieve and follow them,
Cowardly fled, not having struck one stroke.
Hence flew the general wrack and massacre;
Enclos'd were they with their enemies.
A base Walloon, to win the Dauphin's grace,
Thrust Talbot with a spear into the back –
Whom all France, with their chief assembled strength,
Durst not presume to look once in the face.

(–)

Here Fastolf's betrayal is the direct cause of the English defeat, not the fact that they were outnumbered ten-to-one, that they were hit by a surprise attack or that they were surrounded. This notion is returned to several times, with the implication each time that only treachery can account for an English defeat. For example, upon hearing of the first loss of towns in France, Exeter immediately asks, "How were they lost? What treachery was used?" (). Upon losing Rouen, Talbot exclaims, "France, thou shalt rue this treason with thy tears/If Talbot but survive thy treachery" (–36). Later, when thinking back on the French campaign, Richard asks Henry, "Have we not lost most part of all the towns/By treason, falsehood and by treachery" (–).

H. C. Selous's illustration of Talbot engaging in battle in Act 4, Scene 6; from The Plays of William Shakespeare: The Historical Plays, edited by Charles Cowden Clarke and Mary Cowden Clarke ()

However, if the English are of the mind that they can only be defeated by treachery and betrayal, the play also presents the French as somewhat in awe of them, bearing a begrudging respect for them, and fearing their strength in battle. As such, whilst the English attribute every defeat to treachery, the French opinion of the English seems to imply that perhaps this is indeed the only way to beat them. For example, during the siege of Orléans:

ALENÇON
Froissart, a countryman of ours, records
England all Olivers and Rolands bred
During the time Edward the Third did reign.
More truly now may this be verified,
For none but Samsons and Goliases
It sendeth forth to skirmish. One to ten?
Lean raw-boned rascals – who would e'er suppose
They had such courage and audacity.

CHARLES
Let's leave this town, for they are hare-brained slaves,
And hunger will enforce them to be more eager.
Of old I know them; rather with their teeth
The walls they'll tear down than forsake the siege.

REIGNIER
I think by some odd gimmers or device
Their arms are set, like clocks, still to strike on,
Else n'er could they hold out as they do.

()

As such, the play presents, to a certain extent, the English image of themselves as somewhat in line with the French image of them, with both stressing resoluteness and steadfastness.

Another component of the patriotic sentiment is the religious note the play often strikes. On the whole, everything Catholic is represented as bad, everything Protestant is represented as good: "The play's popularity [in ] has to be seen against the backdrop of an extraordinary efflorescence of interest in political history in the last two decades of the sixteenth century fed by self-conscious patriotic Protestantism's fascination with its own biography in history. It is not for nothing that Part One is persistently anti-Catholic in a number of ways despite the fact that in the fifteenth century the entire population of England was nominally Catholic (though not, of course, in ). The French are presented as decadently Catholic, the English (with the exception of the Bishop of Winchester) as attractively Protestant."^[63] Talbot himself is an element of this, insofar as his "rhetoric is correspondingly Protestant. His biblical references are all from the Old Testament (a source less fully used by Catholics) and speak of stoicism and individual faith."^[64] Henry V is also cited as an example of Protestant purity: "He was a king blest of the King of Kings./Unto the French the dreadful judgement day/So dreadful will not be as was his sight./The battles of the Lords of Hosts he fought" (–31). "King of kings" is a phrase used in 1 Timothy, "Lords of Hosts" is used throughout the Old Testament, and to say Henry fought for the Lord of Hosts is to compare him to the warrior king, David, who also fought for the Lords of Hosts in 1 Samuel,

However, despite the obvious celebratory patriotic tone and sense of Protestant/English religio-political identity, as with the lamentation for the death of chivalry, the play is somewhat ambiguous in its overall depiction of patriotism. Ultimately, the play depicts how the English lost France, a seemingly strange subject matter if Shakespeare was attempting to instil a sense of national pride in the people. This is rendered even more so when one considers that Shakespeare could have written about how England won France in the first place: "The popularity of "Armada rhetoric" during the time of 1 Henry VI's composition would have seemed to ask for a play about Henry V, not one which begins with his death and proceeds to dramatise English loses."^[65] In this sense then, the depiction of patriotism, although undoubtedly strong, is not without ambiguity; the very story told by the play renders any patriotic sentiment found within to be something of a hollow victory.

Saintly vs. demonic[edit]

Demons, spirits, witches, saints