'Divinytie and State': Narrative and Dramatic Representations of the English Past, 1516-1603

在16世纪，国家过去的形象受到宗教因素的制约。人们早就认识到，宗教改革解放了伟大的史学能量，随着国教的不断改变和变化，英国的过去被反复地重新想象和重新书写。然而，宗教改革的史学后果得到了更多的承认，而不是一丝不苟的描述。因此，我的专著的第一部分比任何现有的记录都更详细地展示了文本动态的证据忏悔的变化或张力引入了关于英国过去的历史写作，从1516年法比安编年史的第一次出现到后来伊丽莎白时代福克斯的《行为和纪念碑》的版本。第二部分以前一部分的结论为基础，展示了改变和扩展叙事史学领域的忏悔能量如何同样出现在这一时期的历史剧中，尽管通常不那么明显。这里的时间范围从贝尔的金奇·约翰营地延伸出来。1538年)到海伍德的《如果你不认识我》的第二部分。1606年)，讨论集中在两种典型的性格形式：正义的君主和殉道的臣民。本专著的第三部分采用了两位前人的发现，并将它们与莎士比亚历史剧的主体进行了测试，以证明戏剧的创新性和典型性，这些戏剧经常（并且错误地）被用来创建伊丽莎白时代历史剧的通用模板。因此，这本专著有望对以下方面做出有益的贡献：(1)我们对16世纪历史写作的理解，尤其是它与宗教问题的关系；b)我们对伊丽莎白时代历史剧的理解，以及莎士比亚在其中的地位；c)莎士比亚与当代剧作家的关系。

In the sixteenth century images of the national past were conditioned by considerations of religion. The Reformation, as has long been recognised, liberated great historiographical energies, and the English past was repeatedly re-imagined and re-written as the national religion was successively changed and inflected. However, the historiographical consequences of the Reformation have been more acknowledged than meticulously described. Therefore the first part of my monograph presents in more intimate detail than can be found in any existing account evidence for the textual dynamics that confessional change or tension introduced into historical writing about the English past from the first appearance of Fabyan's Chronicle in 1516 to the later Elizabethan editions of Foxe's Actes and Monuments. The second part builds on the conclusions of its predecessor by showing how the confessional energies which transformed and expanded the field of narrative historiography were equally, although often less overtly, present in the historical drama of the period. Here the temporal range extends from Bale's Kynge Johan (camp. 1538) to the second part of Heywood's If You Know Not Me (pub. 1606), and the discussion is focused upon two paradigmatic forms of character: the justified monarch and the martyred subject. The third part of the monograph takes the findings of its two predecessors, and tests them against the body of Shakespeare's historical drama in order to demonstrate the innovativeness and a-typicality of plays which have often (and mistakenly) been used to create the generic template of the Elizabethan history play. So the monograph promises to make a useful contribution to: a) our understanding of the historical writing of the sixteenth century, and in particular its relation to questions of religion; b) our understanding of Elizabethan historical drama, and of Shakespeare's place within it; and c) Shakespeare's relation to contemporary dramatists.