臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文試圖以文藝復興時期義大利政治思想家馬基維利(Niccolò Machiavelli)觀點詮釋《亨利五世》中亨利五世治國之術和為君之道。馬基維利認為君王應以務實為出發點治理國家。馬基維利認為君主應揚棄中古時期基督教強調以道德為出發點的治國術，即使道德上有爭議，君主也應應務實處理。
本文首章概述《亨利五世》重要相關研究。傳統上此劇本被視為愛國劇本，意在引起觀眾對英國懷抱愛國情緒。但本文以治國術和為君之道觀點探討《亨利五世》，本劇可視為亨利五世活用馬基維利觀點統治英國和征服法國的表現。
第二章簡述馬基維利治國之道的重要觀點。馬基維利強調君主應以政治權宜之計(political expediency)為考量統治國家。政治權宜之計來自君主是否有其能力(virtu)實現。馬基維利指出君主能力包含幾個方面。首先，君王應先了解人性－人善變、自私、眼光短淺。此外君王應效法獅子般威武，狐狸般狡詐。馬基維利也強調軍事重要性，主張君主應熟習戰爭之道，使政權更加鞏固。對馬基維利而言，君主應在不引起人民反感和怨恨的情形之下，以殘酷(cruelty)而非仁慈(mercy)治理國家。
第三章論述亨利五世的治國之術和為君之道。亨利於本劇一開始，即知政治權宜重要性，立即擺脫過去哈爾王子(Prince Hal)浪蕩形象，顯現治國明君之貌。亨利繼任王位後，立即發動對法國戰爭，宣稱擁有法國王位合法繼承權。表面上此戰爭是為王位，實為亨利統治英國策略──統合分裂英國也使覬覦王位者分心。
第四章探討亨利戰爭之道。戰爭中亨利巧妙運用殘酷和仁慈概念統領軍隊和對抗法國。亨利以仁慈獲得軍隊認同和支持，也以殘酷制衡違法亂紀之人。對抗法國時，亨利先以殘酷成功征服法軍，再以仁慈對待法軍。
末章提出本劇著重於亨利的馬基維利治國術。本劇延續也呼應莎翁第二輯四部曲(the Second Tetralogy)之觀點──政治世界之道德與普通世界道德相異。君主為國家利益之故，有時也須作出與普通世界道德相異甚至相反之舉。

The thesis intends to reconsider the last play of Shakespeare’s second tetralogy Henry V in terms of Niccolò Machiavelli’s treaties on statecraft and kingship.
Chapter one begins with a review of important study of Henry V in the twentieth century. Traditionally, the play is seen as a patriotic one which is intended to arouse the interest of the English audience. However, the play can be viewed as one that examines Henry’s skills of statecraft and kingship in uniting England and conquering France in terms of Machiavellian doctrines.
Chapter two concentrates on Machiavelli’s theories of statecraft and kingship. Different from his contemporary, Machiavelli believes that his treaties on rulership is practical and feasible. He asserts that a king should seek political expediency to further his end of ruling his nation. For political expediency, a king should have virtu that makes him competent. First, a king should understand the part of human nature that appears to be variable, selfish, shallow and nearsighted. Then a king should imitate the lion and the fox. The former means being brave and the latter means being cunning. Machiavelli further contends, however controversially, that war is a means of peace. He argues that a king should understand the importance of war and prepare for war in peace time. In addition, a king should employ cruelty to such a degree that he will not breed people’s contempt and hatred.
Chapter three examines Henry’s Machiavellian statecraft and kingship in the text. Henry understands well Machiavellian notions of political expediency. At the beginning of the play, he transforms himself into a competent king. Then he instigates a war against France, intending to capture the French throne through the matrilineal inheritance. On the surface, the war is about the succession problem. In fact, the war is Henry’s strategy to unite the whole England and distract those who covet his throne.
Chapter four centers on Henry’s art of war—he understands the skill of mercy and cruelty in the battlefield to rule his soldiers and subdue the French. Henry adopts mercy to win his soldiers’ support and boost their morale; meanwhile, he executes outlaws who infringe battlefield orders. For the French, Henry first makes use of cruelty to them to make them yield. Then he appeases them with mercy.
The thesis concludes with the conviction that Henry shows himself as a Machiavellian king in his statecraft and kingship. The play echoes the other second tetralogy: what is good in the political world is not the same as that in our everyday world. A competent king sometimes has to do what is morally nasty in his statecraft and kingship in the political realm.

Abstract (Chinese) i
Abstract (English) ii
Acknowledgements iv
Chapter One 1
Introduction 1
Henry V: A Machiavel or Ideal King 1
Henry V: Twentieth Century and 2
Chapter Description 11
Chapter Two 12
Machiavelli’s New Morality 12
Free Will and Fortune 15
Virtu 17
A. On Men 18
B. The Lion and the Fox 20
C. War as a Means of Peace 22
D. Mercy and Cruelty . 25
Machiavellianism in Tudor England 30
Chapter Three 33
Henry’s Machiavellian Statecraft and Kingship in Warfare 33
Prince Hal and Henry 33
The Illegitimate and Unjust War against France 36
War as a Machiavellian Ploy 43
A. Uniting the Whole England 43
B. “Busy Giddy Mind” 50
Chapter Four 61
Machiavellian Art of War: The Use of Mercy and Cruelty 61
“Fair Proceedings of the King” 61
Disciplining an Army 63
Executing Outlaws 73
Henry’s “Once More Unto the Breach” 76
Threatening Harfleur 76
Killing the French prisoners 78
Henry’s Courtly Love 83
Conclusion 87
Machiavellian Prince Presented 87
The King’s Struggle 90
Notes 94
Works Cited 98

Works Cited
Abate, Corinne S. “‘Once more unto the breach’: Katherine’s Victory in Henry V” Early Theater 4 (2001): 73-85.
Alvis, John. Shakespeare’s Understanding of Honor. Durham: Carolina Academic P, 1990.
Bach, Rebecca Ann. “Tennis Balls: Henry V and Testicular Masculinity.” Renaissance Drama 30 (1999): 3-23.
Belsey, Catherine. “Making Histories Then and Now: Shakespeare from Richard II to Henry V.” Uses of History: Marxism, Postmodernism and the Renaissance. Ed. Francis Barker, et al. New York: St. Martin's, 1991. 24-46.
Burt, Richard, and John Michael Archer, eds. Enclosure Acts: Sexuality, Property, and Culture in Early Modern England. Ithaca: UP of Cornell, 1994.
Cahn, Victor L. Shakespeare the Playwright: A Companion to the Complete Tragedies, Histories, Comedies and Romances. New York: Greenwood P, 1991.
Campbell, Lily B. Shakespeare’s “History”: Mirrors of Elizabethan Policy. London: Methuen, 1964.
Canto, Paul A. “Shakespeare’s Henry V: From the Medieval to the Modern World.” Perspectives on Politics in Shakespeare. Ed. John A. Murley and Sean D. Sutton. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006.
Descombes, Vincent. Objects of All Sorts: A Philosophical Grammar. Trans. L.
Dean, Paul. “Chronicle and Romance Modes in Henry V.” Shakespeare Quarterly 32 (1981): 18-27.
Docherty, Thomas. “Machiavelli and the Hypocrisy of Modernization.” Shakespeare in Southern Africa 13 (2001): 11-22.
Dollimore, Jonathan, and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism. 2nd ed. Ithaca: UP of Cornell, 1994.
Eggert, Katherine. “Nostalgia and the Not Yet Late Queen: Refusing Female Rule in Henry V.” ELH 61 (1994): 523-50.
Goddard, Harold C. The Meaning of Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.
Grady, Hugh. Shakespeare, Machiavelli and Montaigne: Power and Subjectivity From Richard II to Hamlet. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002.
Greenblatt, Steven, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus, Eds. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: Norton, 1997.
Hadfield, Andrew. Literature, Politics and National Identity: Reformation to Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
Hadfield, Andrew. Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2004.
Haigh, Christopher. English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
Hall, Joan Lord. Henry V: A Guide to the Play. London: Greenwood P, 1997.
Hankins, James. “Humanism and the Origins of Modern Political Thought.” The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism. Ed. Jill Kraye. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. 118-141.
Hoak, Dale, ed. Tudor Political Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.
Hodgdon, Barbara. The End Crowns All: Closure and Contradiction in Shakespeare’s History. Princeton: UP of Princeton, 1991.
Holderness, Graham, ed. Shakespeare’s History Plays: Richard II to Henry V. New York: St. Martin’s, 1992.
---. Shakespeare Recycled: The Making of Historical Drama. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992.
Holderness, Graham, Nick Potter and John Turner. Shakespeare: The Play of History. Hong Kong, U of Iowa P, 1988.
Honigmann, E. A. J. “Henry V: The Rabbit and the Duck.” Shakespeare: Seven
Tragedies Revisited. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Howard, Jean Elizabeth, and Phyllis Rackin. Engendering a Nation: A Feminist Account of Shakespeare’s English Histories. London: Routledge, 1997.
Howard, Jean Elizabeth. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London: Routledge, 1994.
Humphreys, A. R. Ed. Henry V in William Shakespeare, Four Histories. New York: Penguin Books, 1994.
Jackson, Leonard. The Poverty of Structuralism: Literature and Structuralist Theory. Detroit: Gale, 1978. Vol. 107 of Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Lee, Michelle.
Jensen, Pamela K. “The Famous Victories of William Shakespeare: The Life of Henry the Fifth.” Poets, Princes and Private Citizens: Literary Alternatives to postmodern Politics. Ed. Joseph M. Knipppenberg and Peter Augustine Lawler. London: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, 1996.
Johnson, Samuel. “Notes on Shakespeare’s Plays: ‘Henry V’.” Ed. Arthur Sherbo. The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson. Yale UP, 1968.
Jones , Robert C. These Valiant Dead: Renewing the Past in Shakespeare’s Histories. Iowa: U of Iowa P, 1991.
Jordan, Constance. “Henry V and the Tudor Monarchy.” Early Modern English Drama: A Critical Companion. Ed. Garrett A. Sullivan. New York: Oxford UP, 2006.
Kahn, Victoria. Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994.
Lentriccchia, Frank. After the New Criticism. London: Chicago UP, 1980.
Li-Chiang, Wang. “Fair Proceeding of the King’s: Statecrafts and Kingship in Shakespeare’s Second Tetralogy.” MA thesis. U of National Cheng Kung, 2002.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Angelo M. Codevilla. New York: Yale UP,
1997.
Mansfield, Harvey C. Machiavelli's Virtue. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
Mcaliondon, Tom. “War and Peace in Henry V.” Shakespeare Minus Theory. London:
Ashgate Publishing, 2004.
Moseley, C. W. R. D. “This Sceptred Isle: Henry V.” Shakespeare’s History Plays
Richard II to Henry V. London: Penguin, 1988.
Montrose, Louis. The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the Elizabethan Theater. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1996.
Najemy, John M. “Baron’s Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism.” American Historical Review 101 (1996): 119-129.
---. Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513-1515. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993.
Newman, Karen. Fashioning Femininity and English Renaissance Drama. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991.
Pearlman, Elihu. William Shakespeare: The History Plays. New York: Twayne, 1992.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. Fortune Is a Woman. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999.
Prior, Moody. The Drama of Power: Studies in Shakespeare’s History Plays. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1973.
Rabkin, Norman. “Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V.” Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory 1945-2000. Ed. Russ McDonald. New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2004.
Roberts , Brian. “Shakespeare’s Henry V.” Explicator 60 (2002): 58-9.
Roe, John. Shakespeare and Machiavelli. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.
Sanders, Wilbur. The Dramatist and the Received Idea. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968.
Schwyzer, Philip. “‘Im am Welsh, you know’: The Nation in Henry V.” Literature,
Nationalism and Memory in Early Modern England and Wales. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2004.
Sinfield, Alan. Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading. Berkeley: UP of California, 1992.
Soll, Jacob. Publishing The Prince: History, Reading and the Birth of Political Criticism. U of Michigan P, 2005.
Spiekerman, Tim. Shakespeare’s Political Realism. New York: State U of New York P, 2001.
Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England 1500-1800. New York: Harper, 1979.
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.
Sullivan, Vickie B. Machiavelli's Three Romes: Religion, Human Liberty, and Politics Reformed. New York: Northern Illinois UP, 1996.
Sullivan, Vickie B., Ed. The Comedy and Tragedy of Machiavelli: Essays on the Literary Works. Yale: Yale UP, 2000.
Taylor, Gary. An Introduction to Henry V. Clarendon P, Oxford, 1982.
Tennenhouse, Leonard. Rituals of State: History and the Elizabethan Strategies of Power. Detroit: Gale, 1978. Vol. 107 of Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Lee, Michelle.
Thorne, Alison. “Awake remembrance of these valiant dead: Henry V and the politics of the English history play.” Shakespeare Studies (2002): 162-87.
Tiffany, Grace. “Shakespeare’s Dionysian Prince: Drama, Politics, and the ‘Athenian’ History Play.” Renaissance Quarterly 52 (1999): 366-83.
Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage, 1962.
---. Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Penguin, 1969.
Traversi, Derek. Shakespeare: From Richard II to Henry V. New York: Stanford UP, 1957.
Tsung-wen, Wu. “Shakespeare’s Machiavellianism in Two Tetralogies: King Richard III and King Henry IV.” MA thesis. U of National Sun Yat-Sen, 2001.
Vickers, Brian. Appropriating Shakespeare: Contemporary Critical Quarrels. London: Yale UP, 1994.
Warburton, Nigel, Jon Pike, and Derek Matravers. Reading Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill. London: Routledge, 2000.
Wells, Robin Headlam. “The Fortunes of Tillyard: Twentieth-Century Critical Debate
on Shakespeare’s History Plays.” English Studies 66 (1985): 391-403.
Wells, Stanley, and Gary Taylor, William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. New York: Norton, 1997.
Wentersdorf, Karl P.. “The Conspiracy of Silence in Henry V.” Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 49. Kathy D. Darrow Ed. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2000.
Wilson, John Dover. “An Introduction to King Henry V.” Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 5. Mark W. Scott Ed. Detroit: Gale Research, 1987.
Wootton, David, Ed. Selected political writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Indianapolis: Hackett Pubs., 1994.
Wright, Louis B and Virginia A. Lamar. The Folger guide to Shakespeare. New York: Washington Square Press, 1969.