Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from Shakespeare to the Twenty-First Century:

 
 
 
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from
Shakespeare to the Twenty-First Century
di Valentina Ligabue
 
Studio di autori, opere e movimenti – dal Rinascimento alla contemporaneità –
incentrati sul tema dell’identità nazionale. Viene approfondita la questione
dell’emergere, nell’ambito della rappresentazione letteraria, delle varie identità
delle nazioni che compongono le Isole britanniche a partire dalla prima età
moderna, nonché la questione dello sviluppo di un senso condiviso, ma
comunque problematico, di un’identità britannica (Britishness) dal diciottesimo
secolo in avanti. Allo stesso tempo, si verificherà, tramite l’analisi di testi di
epoche diverse, come l’espansione imperiale della Gran Bretagna abbia influito
sulla formazione di queste identità
 
Università: Università degli Studi di Parma
Corso: Civiltà e Lingue Straniere Moderne
Esame: Letteratura Inglese III
Docente: Diego Saglia1. Reflections on NATIONALISM
 
 
Ernest RENAN: What is a Nation? 
- Renan was a philologist, philosopher and political historian who lived in the 19th century. 
- Although his essay is not scientific, it is interesting because it shows us what people at that time
understood by “nation”. 
- He claims that a nation is a FEELING and it has a spiritual principle (we are in the field of the
transcendental). 
- He also links the PAST and the PRESENT: 
* This feeling is rooted in the HERITAGE, it’s connected with traditions, past glories as well as tragedies
and 
* It continues in the present: it’s the feeling of togetherness. He says “the nation is a plebiscite”. 
 
Walker CONNOR: A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic group, is a...  
- 20th century. 
- The nation is something non-existent, it is CONSTRUCTED. 
- It’s difficult to define a nation, because its concept is mixed with other ideas, such as that of state. “The
Nation is a State...” this is misleading because the state is the political division of the globe, while the nation
is an essence. 
- He adds the elements of ethnical groups (we have different origins), culture and cultural specificity
(national language and literature), territory (landscape and limits). 
- Jingoism: aggressive hostility against other nations based on the idea of one’s own superiority. 
 
Benedict ANDERSON: 
- 20th century - 1983 
- The nation is an “IMAGINED COMMUNITY”, it is not real. 
- Literature is a fundamental instrument to the creation of the sense of nation. 
 
SHAKESPEARE (1564 – 1616) 
- First Folio (1623) divided into 3 groups (generic system): COMEDIES, TRAGEDIES, HISTORIES. 
- In the 20th century scholars started speaking of another genre: ROMANCE. 
- HISTORY PLAYS (he wrote 10 history plays): 
- History plays mainly deal with English history, but also with history of other countries such as Scotland,
Wales, Ireland and France. Do not confuse with Tragedies which are about ancient history (Roman History,
ex: Julius Caesar). 
- History plays were very popular during the 16th century because there was a strong sense of NATIONAL
IDENTITY: English felt their history was peculiar for REGLIOUS, MILITARY and COMMERICIAL
REASONS.  
- Protestant reformation: the Church of England separated from that of Rome. 
- The Tudor monarchs started wars against other countries, France and Spain in particular (1588 – the
English won against the invincible Armada – it was a moment of great glorification). 
- Transformation in the idea of history: from a medieval idea to a renaissance idea of history: medieval
Valentina Ligabue Sezione Appunti
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from history is based on providence, it’s in God’s hands, while the renaissance history is in our hands: history
teaches us how to make history and not to repeat other mistakes. 
- Shakespeare created history plays using 2 sources: 
* The MEDIEVAL MORALITY PLAYS (religious plays) 
* The OFFICIAL HISTORIA (official history of the Kingdom) 
- Shakespeare didn’t write history, but DRAMA. He used history but he transformed it in order to create
interesting characters and for political reasons. 
 
The plays are problematic because: 
* The quality is discontinuous (some are good and some are average) 
* They are complicated (many characters and subplots) 
 
It’s difficult to say what idea of history these plays endorse: 
* Some critics think they support a providential history. 
* Others think Shakespeare presents a negative vision on monarchs: a part from Henry V, there isn’t any
other positive king: they are weak, self-referential and represent the enemy of the English – Shakespeare
may be presenting 2 different ideas of the nation: on the one hand there is a possible centralisation of the
state on the king, on the other hand Shakespeare was the first to consider the British isles as interconnected. 
 
To remember: 
The War of the 2 Roses: House of York (white rose) vs House of of Lancaster (red rose). It went from the
deposition of Richard II (1398) to the accession of Henry VII -> first TUDOR (grandfather of Queen
Elizabeth I). 
 
RICHARD II 
- He reigned from 1377 to 1399 
- Everything revolves around him. 
- He’s weak and immature, manipulated by the men of his court. 
- He’s a medieval king who believes that his authority comes from God -> divine right of the crown. 
- In the end he’s deposed -> this is the beginning of the war of the 2 roses. He’s replaced by Henry IV. 
 
Versi 31-68 
 
- John of Gaunt, the king’s uncle speaks. He’s the founder of the Lancaster dynasty, he comes from a royal
family (son of Henry III), he was born in the city of Gaunt (Belgium today) and is Richard’s tutor (he tried
to help him become a good king, but Richard becomes infatuated with the idea of divine power. 
- John is about to die (very ill). 
- In his speech there are 3 movements: 
° He depicts the situation of England in the present. England is presented as a diseased body, nothing is
balanced. Semantic fields: disorder, imbalance, confusion, excess. The climax is on the idea of self-
destruction (eat-itself). 
° Idealised conception of England -> Glorification. He uses list, metaphor (seat of Mars – land of Warriors),
accumulation, crescendo and climax. England as a military nation: solidity, defence, preciousness, greatness
in smallness. 
Valentina Ligabue Sezione Appunti
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from ° He makes a prediction of the future -> prophecy which becomes a curse. He reworks positive powerful
semantic fields: images of fertility, celebration of the English monarch, positive lineage because of their
heroism, military exploits and Christianity 
 
BUT Richard II is not this kind of king -> IRONY. Also he uses the language of economy to say that the
country has been sold because of the king’s incompetence as a ruler. 
 
NB: line 66 – the conclusion of the 3rd section goes back to the conclusion of the 1st = destruction of itself  
In this picture we go from what England is to what it should be. Then a sad premonition on what it will be
follows. 
 
->>Ideas of : INSULARITY, PRIDE, SELF-SUFFICIENCY, GREATNESS IN SMALLNESS  
 
- John of Gaunt represents the old generation of the triumphant part of England – there’s a reference to his
father Henry III who triumphed in the BATTLE OF CRECY (1346) against France. 
- Richard II is represented as an autocrat who’s incapable of handling politics and ruling. 
- The deposition of the king was a rare event. A king could be defeated or die. Shakespeare stresses the
unusual nature of the king’s end. It can only cause unnatural events such as the war of the 2 Roses. 
 
HENRY IV 
- Duke of Lancaster (he was the 1st king from Lancaster), military leader. He imprisons Richard II, takes the
crown and becomes King Henry IV. 
- He reigned from 1399 to 1413 
- Part 1 and part 2 follow his reign. 
- Unlike Richard II, where the king is the centre of the play, here we have 2 main characters: 
° Henry IV, who’s political manipulation and is responsible. 
° Prince Harry or Hal, his son, the heir to the throne. He’s a rebel, he refuses his father’s authority and he
rejects his role as a prince. He lives in London, in taverns; he’s often drunk and surrounds himself with low
class people. He creates another father figure: Sir John Falstaff, who represents irresponsibility. 
 
HERNY V 
- After his father’s death prince Harry becomes the king. He’s a young king who has completely forgotten
his old lifestyle and has embraced his role of king. At the beginning he manages complex military and
diplomatic affairs. He’s powerful and astute. He listens to his advisors but at the same time he’s the leader.
He is completely POSITIVE. 
- He leads the country to war against France and with a very small army he wins on the 25th October 1415,
the day of Saint Crispin – which is an important theme in the play. 
- The play has entered the NATIONAL IMAGINATION: it was used as an instrument for patriotic
propaganda during World War 2 to rouse the spirit/strength of the nation. 
- Henry receives an embassy from the King of France with a challenge and decides to go to war against
France. 
- Siege of Harfleur: 1st military confrontation. Henry wins the battle and conquers the town but as time goes
on, his army becomes tired and soldiers die. The French army instead is healthy and strong. They prepare to
counterattack. 
Valentina Ligabue Sezione Appunti
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from - The clash happens in Angicourt the day of Saint Crispin. 
- The king of France proposes peace and offers his daughter (Catherine of Valois) to Henry. Shakespeare
describes the courtship between Henry & Catherine. In the end they fall in love: a new bond between
England and France is created. 
- The play ends with a sign of hope BUT the peace didn’t last long: Henry died young and was succeeded by
Henry VI, who was incapable of ruling (he was only a child and then he became weak). 
 
Henry’s speech: 
° Perfect rhetoric: accumulation of emphasis and emotions. 
° He invokes 2 general principles: country and honour. 
° Then the speech becomes more specific – there’s the veteran’s story: he describes the daily life of this
man, the idea of the battle is transformed into a memory which is part of daily life and involves a little
community which is linked with the idea of the Kingdom (a larger community). An event like this one can
create a sense of union. They all belong to the same country. NB: it’s not democracy. 
° This speech is effective because the king strikes the imagination of the soldiers to imagine themselves as a
unified group (band) linked by the feeling of belonging to the same community -> idea of brotherhood. 
° Benedict Anderson: the members don’t know each other, but what keeps them together is the idea that they
belong to the same structure. 
 
RICHARD III 
- He’s a villain, Machiavellian and he murders all his opponents. He’s the last king of the war of the 2 roses. 
 
Richmond’s speech: 
° It is less emotional and it is practical. 
° He separates good from evil. 
° Richard III is a Satan, he’s a liar, he’s impure and dirty  from England which is pure. 
° He claims they have to fight because of God’s will, for the country and for their families. 
° The climax is on the symbols of nationalism: religion, flags and S. George. 
° Henry is like Jesus Christ, he had given new life to the nation. 
° Shakespeare celebrates the founder of the Tudor. 
 
Richard III’s speech: 
° It is characterised by selfishness. 
° Shakespeare stresses the fact that he was wrongly set on the throne. 
Valentina Ligabue Sezione Appunti
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from 2. LINDA COLLEY (historian) - BRITONS: FORGING THE
NATION 1707-1837
 
 
1707: England was united with Scotland and the Parliament of Westminster became the only legislative
body of both countries. From this year we start talking about Greta Britain as a geographical expression as
well as a political one. 
 
1837: Queen Victoria to the throne. 
-> According to Colley, during this period fundamental transformations in the idea on the nation and
Britishness developed. 
 
Transformations before 1707: 
 
INTERNAL: 
-> PROGRESSIVE STRENGTH OF INTERNAL COHESION. After Queen Elizabeth I’s death the 2
crowns of Scotland and England were united in the same monarch, James I. The 2 countries kept their own
political structures. 
The CIVIL WAR in the 17th century broke out after the execution of King Charles I -> transformation of
England in a Republic or Commonwealth with Oliver Cromwell. It finished in 1660 with Cromwell’s death.
Then the Restoration followed with the accession of Charles II. 
 
EXTERNAL: 
-> TERRITORIAL EXPANSION connected with the colonisation of North America which began under
Queen Elizabeth I. 
-> EXPANSION OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONALLY: during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I many
trading companies were created. They received a license to trade in various parts of the globe. The most
important one was the EIC: East India Company, which was created in 1600 and which received the license
to trade between England and all the territories in Asia. It became extremely powerful -> corporation. 
-> Wars fought by England, especially during the period of Cromwell, in order to establish the supremacy of
Britain on the seas against France and Holland, both in a military and commercial perspective. 
 
From the 18th century England and Great Britain established themselves as world powers (and wars
continued to be fought). 
 
Linda Colley: 
->> She analyses that in this period a sense of British identity began to grow. She calls it “patriotism”: idea
that everybody belongs to the same nation, everybody could contribute to the creation of the nation and
could benefit from it. 
->> Her point is that of Anderson: the idea of britishness is primarily an idea. Britain emerged and
developed as a national community, the creation of consensus that we all belong to the same structure. 
->> How was this consensus created? By mobilising all the populations against the “Other” = ideological
Valentina Ligabue Sezione Appunti
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from mobilisation against a common enemy. Idea of creating unity by creating an enemy and by promoting the
sense of antagonism. The Others were the other great powers such as France and Spain. 
->> At this point the “US vs THEM” mentality began strongly. 
->> About the present: why isn’t GB so united? The enemy is no longer there so the union falls apart. 
Valentina Ligabue Sezione Appunti
Forms of National Identity: Englishness/Britishness from