Thomas Nashe

Nashe's [The Unfortunate Traveller] reads like pulp fiction, unfortunately for Nashe it was written at a time when there was no market for it. Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) was an Elizabethan playwright, poet and satirist who had made his name as a pamphleteer. His previous publication was Christ Tears over Jerusalem published 1593 in which he imagined that Jesus Christ is looking down on Jerusalem and weeping to see the moral corruption that will lead to his crucifixion: a moral text which comes show more across as a fiery sermon to the unchristian. The Unfortunate Traveller by contrast has no moral compass, but is written in the style of a picaresque novel and delights in the escapades of a rogue: Jack Wilton, who barrels around Europe, in his attempts to get rich quick and enjoy himself as much as possible along the way.

This is a radical work that hardly bears any relation to anything I have read previously in English Renaissance literature. It is radical in the sense of the readers at which it was aimed and one wonders if those readers existed at the time, because it did not sell particularly well. Nashe had already shown that he was a writer whose colourful language and striking metaphors could enliven many a dull text, but in The Unfortunate Traveller he not only throws the kitchen sink into his work, but he makes it subversive. It is rapacious, grotesque, voyeuristic and transgresses almost every known genre of popular fiction of its time. It could be compared to the carnivalistic writing of Rabelais, but by anchoring his story in an historical setting Nashe adds realism and cruelty to the mix.

The story is episodic in nature and starts with Jack Wilton loosely connected to the entourage around Henry VIII campaign in France. His merry pranks and swindles and the onset of the sweating sickness result in him leaving the campaign as quickly as he could and he arrives in Munster to witness the merciless massacre of John Leiden's Anabaptist faction. He meets Henry Howard Earl of Surrey the famous poet and courtier and they become travelling companions. They exchange identities in order that the Earl of Surrey can travel incognito and in Rotterdam they hobnob with Erasmus and Sir Thomas Moore. Henry Howard is searching for his beloved Geraldine and they travel to Italy meeting Cornelius Agrippa on the way. Various plots and subterfuge result in the two companions being imprisoned for fraud and they are only saved from execution by the intervention of the famous satirist Pietro Aretino. Jack watches Henry Howard compete and win a jousting tournament before leaving with Diamante a beautiful courtesan. In Rome Jack barricades himself in an upstairs room and watches through a gap in the floorboards the protracted and violent rape of Heraclide by the bandit Esdras. Jack is accused of the rape but escapes to search for Diamante who he finds enslaved by the Jew Zadok. He gleefully watches the horrific execution of the Jew. Jack and Diamante travel to Bologna where the violent Cutwolf catches up with Esdras and shoots him in the mouth. Jack watches yet another brutal execution of the proud Cutwolf before fleeing back to the English encampment and reflecting on the dangers of travelling.

The novel starts with Jack and his clever swindles rather in the style of Robert Greene's conny catching, but soon takes a darker turn with the descriptions of the sweating sickness. The horrific massacre of the Anabaptists and the execution of John Leiden starts the trail of violence that will eventually lead to rape and murder. Along the way we are entertained by a sort of throwback story of Knights jousting in a tournament with Nashe supplying voluminous satirical descriptions of the knights attire. He also finds time to attach a couple of sonnets supposedly written in the style of Henry Howard. The reader is never far away from the next violent incident, but the rape of Heraclide is monstrous and we are in the realms of violent pornography. The executions that follow are gruesome and it is the feel of being a voyeur through Jacks eyes that makes these scenes so evocative.

Nashe knew he was writing something different, something new and in his dedication to the Earl of Southampton he describes his work as being in a clean different vein. He goes on to address the Dapper Monsieur Pages of the Court asking them to enjoy the wit and hear Jack Wilton tell his own tales. Perhaps the satire and the realistic descriptions of the violent events did not appeal and the work was largely forgotten until the late nineteenth century. It was rediscovered and is probably as popular now as it ever was. It can be read free on the internet in glorious modern English courtesy of Nina Green at the oxford-shakespeare.com website. Perhaps not great literature but let Nashe have the last word:

All the conclusive epilogue I will make is this, that if herein I have pleased any, it shall animate me to more pains in this kind. Otherwise, I will swear upon an English chronicle never to be outlandish chronicler more while I live. Farewell, as many as wish me well. June 27, 1593.

A five star read if only for its daring to be something different.

[Terrors of the Night] is more typical of the work of a pamphleteer and while first trying to frighten the reader with the idea that spirits, fairies and other unknown beings inhabit the air all around us, it then goes on to say something about dreams. In Nashe's view dreams are the waste material circulating around our minds when we are asleep and are not significant in forecasting our future.

Perhaps Terrors of the Night could be brought on by reading his [The unfortunate Traveller] just before bedtime. show less

The first of three plays about the reign of Henry VI of England shows conflict between the English and the French, and within the English ranks. Joan of Arc is on the side of the French cause, and the English can’t believe a woman is capable of fighting, so they have to resort to misogyny to feel superior. Richard Plantagenet (the Duke of York) and Somerset, meanwhile, have squared off against each other, each picking white and red roses to symbolize their respective factions.

This is a show more surprisingly slim and action-packed play for a history play. Lots of rapid scenes, changes in location, running around and shouting, and occasional death scenes. It is nice to see Joan fighting, but not to see the English casting aspersions on her sex life. The portrayals of the French in general are designed to make the English look superior, which likely reflects the target audience. For this 21st-century audience, reading this makes me want to find more authoritative, less propagandist sources, particularly for the story of Joan of Arc. Nevertheless, I will read the other two plays in the trilogy. show less

Shakespeare’s histories have always felt less accessible to me than his other work. But I realized the other day that it’s probably because I’m not that familiar with the people involved. What is the musical “Hamilton” if not our version of Shakespeare's histories? It’s a theatrical show based on our own country’s history. Shakespeare's histories are not as easy for us to understand because we they are covering a time period that we don’t always learn about. But during show more Shakespeare's time everyone knew who those dukes and kings were, just as we know names like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Anyway, all of that to say that these three plays worked much better for me than some of the other histories of his I've tackled and I think it’s because I finally made that connection. It was also incredibly helpful to me to watch the Hollow Crown series before reading the plays. It covers all three of these plays although it's called Henry VI Part one and two, it's really a combination of parts 1, 2 and 3.They are so well done and watching those first helped me picture a face with a name while reading the place, which helped me keep all the characters straight.

These plays are part of the eight plays that make up the War of the Roses. Henry VI Part 1 includes the original scene where the characters pick a white or red rose to declare their allegiance. From there it’s a constant stream of battle and betrayal as they all fight for the thrown. Poor King Henry VI is thrust into his role as monarch when he’s only a baby. The death of his father meant a life time watching others attempt to steal his throne. Almost everyone in the plays comes to a bloody end by the final curtain.

A few thoughts:
Margaret was such a bad ass. She was conniving, but she was strong where her husband, King Henry VI, was weak. I have to admire her and she certainly has some of the best lines.
We meet the infamous Richard in these plays. I'd read and seen Richard III before, so reading these gave me a better understanding of his character's background. He’s a delicious villain and one that I loved getting to know.

“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”

BOTTOM LINE: I ended up loving them. I was surprised by how hooked I got on the War of the Roses drama, but it’s like a soap opera. It’s amazing to see how power seems to corrupt all the touch it. Even those who are not driven with a desire for power are often the easiest to steal power from, because they aren’t as vicious as others. I would definitely read part 1, 2, and 3 back-to-back because they work better as one continuous story. I also highly recommend watching the Hollow Crown series first, but just dive into the plays and enjoy them!

“Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.”

“For where thou art, there is the world itself,
With every several pleasure in the world,
And where thou art not, desolation.”

“Unbidden guests are often welcomest when they are gone.” show less

Considering that I took a whole class on Joan of Arc in film and literature, you would think I would remember that she was routing the English out of France during the reign of Henry VI… Apparently not! After the death of Henry V, who made strategic alliances and major military victories to take occupation of France, we see the unstable rule of his son, Henry VI, begin to crumble England’s foundation. Shakespeare (and his apparent co-authors) take advantage of the realistic instability show more in England during this time period, focusing in this first of the trilogy of Henry VI plays on the loss of French territories. A lot of the pre-Tudor plays focus specifically on dissension, whether it be war itself, feuding nobles, or courtly machinations, and this play has a bit of everything. As Henry VI comes of age the nobles who hold regency and true control of the court begin an almost inevitable bickering, a typical result of the system which pits noble families against one another to gain more power and riches. This specific eda of English history isn’t one which I’m particularly invested in, so some of the finer points of this play and linguistic sparring are a bit obtuse without further historical research, but we see the emergence of the York bid for the crown as well as Henry’s ill-advised alliance with France via Margaret of Anjou take hold of the narrative. Offsetting the rumblings at court, the nobles are also engaged in an ongoing battle in France, which they are beginning to lose due to the introduction of Joan of Arc into the narrative to rally the Frenchmen. Joan’s character features heavily throughout the story, and I feel almost like Shakespeare could have written a whole history play about her as a stand-alone, but considering the anti-French rhetoric of Shakespeare’s time it was enough to see her wage battle, spar linguistically, and then meet her fate for heresy at the stake. The play ends shortly after Joan’s death, as Henry makes his alliance with France through marriage, but we are left very much without a real ending and little in the way of satisfaction. The final speeches made by Lords Suffolk and Gloucester make it clear that Henry’s (and England’s) woes have not yet been solved, and further action must play out in subsequent drama. Without the dual story of Joan of Arc, I don’t think that this play is particularly well done in terms of heightening the realistic court drama of the time period, and without the further two story arcs can’t have been much of a success for audiences. show less