Henry V

While many interpret Prince Hal's soliloquy at the end of Act 1, Scene 2 as a simple exchange of identities, through close-reading Shakespeare's use of syntax and metaphor within Hal's dialogue, the complexities of Hal's inner confliction come to light. It is too simple to read the Prince's address as the rejection of a false persona in favor of adopting his true self. Despite the passage examining Hal’s innate nature versus the facade, he displays, in analyzing these two halves of his identity, it does not just declare the thieving rogue as false and the noble king as truly Hal. Instead, as his figurative language and sentence structure display, Hal holds deep uncertainty about what he claims to do and who he claims to be.

This paper was delivered at CAMWS in March 2015 for the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt at which Henry V trounced the French much like Alexander at Issus (for Harfleur consider Tyre).  I had started the paper thinking Tacitus was a role model for Shakespeare with a comparison between Henry V and Germanicus, while though true, is less of a recollection to the audience than Henry to Alexander (from mixed sources:  Alexander Romance, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius Rufus, etc).  I invote others to comment further.  This paper is not the exact version I gave at CAMWS which included sound bites from Branagh's Henry V (now better know than the Olivier version) and some powerpoint pictures.

There was nothing second-rate about the English way of war in the Late Middle Ages, argues Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at London’s Wallace Collection, in a major new study published late last year. The early 15th-century English warrior was at the forefront of military innovation. And the key to success was combined-arms tactics.

EXTERNAL LINK AVAILABLE

The role of the liturgy in establishing the iconographic nature of a saint was fundamental during the medieval period; to date, though, the liturgies of Thomas Becket have rarely been considered for their role in the creation of Thomas’ cult. While work by musicologists such as Andrew Hughes and Kay Brainerd Slocum, and literary scholar Sherry L. Reames has done much to establish the chronology of Thomas’ liturgies and the context of their creation, questions about the liturgies as texted, melodied, and performed statements of Becket’s sanctity remain. My thesis builds on that work while also developing its own methodological framework by locating the Becket liturgies within the political, cultural, and social histories of the institutions for which they were created. It begins with an overview of the sources, addressing their virtues and limitations (especially in terms of using manuscript sources that are not contemporaneous with composition date of the liturgies they represent), while also addressing how the interdisciplinary approach of the thesis - which incorporates analysis of textual, musical, and artistic sources - fits within current historiographical trends. The thesis emphasises performance practices at Canterbury itself and with the liturgy as a musical, audible practice, in turn, it engages with a wider range of sources, placing liturgical texts in dialogue with other non-musicological material. For example, it utilises architectural evidence at Canterbury in conjunction with chronicles and customaries to present an experiential history of Becket’s cult. Doing so will allow the exploration of the "dissemination" of liturgy beyond the textual and demonstrate how liturgy moved to new institutions already embedded with pre-set performative and spatial requirements that needed to be re-imagined in new spaces.
The thesis is divided into two parts. Part A (consisting of Chapters One and Two), discusses the creation of the offices for Becket’s passion and translation at Canterbury in
2
the years after his death. The first chapter explores how the office was composed in 1173 by Benedict of Peterborough (d. 1193), one of the feretrarians for Becket’s shrine, and how Benedict’s place at the heart of a network of early Becket hagiographers shaped the liturgy. It then examines how Benedict’s liturgy influenced the rebuilding of the east end of Canterbury Cathedral after the devastating fire in 1174, and how the internal politics of Christ Church meant that the enlarged Trinity Chapel was built to house Becket’s cult (and his liturgy). Chapter Two’s focus is the creation of the office for Becket’s Translation by the clerical familia of Archbishop Stephen Langton during the 1220s. It explains why Canterbury appears so prominently in that liturgy; namely, after years of wrangling with the monks over where Becket should be buried, Langton desired to reconcile with the community by indicating that Becket’s new shrine was to be his permanent home. Part B examines how Becket’s liturgies were spread beyond Canterbury and follows three lines of inquiry. Chapter Three explores how Becket’s liturgy was adapted, re-imagined, and re-compiled in new institutions that required something different to the original Canterbury plan. Such an aim will not be approached diachronically but will provide snapshots of how the process of adaptation occurred at different places across the centuries. Chapter Four surveys how Becket’s liturgies were utilised as the basis for new non-liturgical music, particularly in Parisian and English motets and conductuses of the thirteenth- and fourteenth-centuries. The final chapter explores how the Lancastrian dynasty used music to promote Becket as a symbol of England and of themselves, which was to imbue the Becket cult with new ideological undertones. The conclusion then takes a brief look at the end of the Becket cult during the reign of Henry VIII, and argues that long-standing tensions in Becket’s hagiography, beginning in the liturgies, ultimately meant he was replaced by Reformation martyrs in the Catholic imagination during the sixteenth century.

Ce texte est issu d’un cours consacré aux mises en scène des pièces de Shakespeare (théâtre et cinéma) et donné en première année de licence d’arts du spectacle (« Lectures de films et de spectacles », Université de Strasbourg, 2009-2013). Il porte sur Henry V de William Shakespeare et sur l’adaptation cinématographique de la pièce par Laurence Olivier en 1944. Après une présentation générale du film, une analyse de la séquence consacrée à la Bataille d’Azincourt est proposée.

At the battle of Mortimer’s Cross in Wales on the 2 February 1461, the eighteen year old Edward earl of March, proved himself to be a capable soldier, defeating a Lancastrian force. At the time Edward’s contemporaries did not doubt his military prowess, or great courage and hardiness. Thomas More wrote that: ‘in war, sharp and fierce; in the field, bold and hardy’. It was Edward’s decisive victory at Mortimer’s cross, which clearly demonstrated that he was the best general on the Yorkist side. Edward IV set a heroic example to his men of being fierce in battle and having proved his hegemonic masculinity, there could be no question regarding his ability to embody the warrior ideal.


In this paper, I argue that there was a strong identification between the warrior ethos and notions of manhood and kingship in the late medieval and early modern period. Edward IV and Henry VIII’s reigns brought a renewal of military activity as both sought to recuperate English chivalric masculinity, whilst they also celebrated the earlier achievements of the medieval warrior kings. Edward was a warrior king in the first instance because he had to be. Henry tried to be one. It becomes apparent in this paper that this was the sort of king that his subjects wanted too.


Significantly for Edward and Henry their nobles remained intrinsically warriors, as a result they were able to develop strong homosocial bonds with their men as they took personally to the battlefield unlike their predecessors. One important aspect that this paper also illustrates is that those men, who took a leading role in warfare tended to be the same men, who had dominated the tiltyard during the reigns of Edward IV and Henry VIII.

In Shakespeare's plays, translation is a common rhetorical trope
that referred to the conveyance of ideas from one geo-cultural location to another, from one historical period to another, and from one artistic form to another. Translational moments create comic relief and heighten the awareness that communication is not a given.

An introduction to the play focusing on the play's political teaching with respect to the shift from the medieval to the modern age. Henry V is represented as the ideal ruler for the modern age, combining the classical virtue's required of a warrior king with the Christian virtues needed to consolidate authority.

The article examines the use of the translatio imperii by the claimants of Roman imperial power in Byzantium and the West, in relation to the Investiture Controversy, while highlighting the role of the papal church and its dynamics in the context of the problem of the Two Empires (Zweikaiserproblem).

In 1415 the army of Henry V succeeded in capturing the town of Harfleur after a six week siege. This was a watershed moment in the history of warfare, as it was the first time that an English army had made extensive use of gunpowder weapons in besieging a sizeable urban settlement. Firearms were subsequently used in all major military operations, playing a key role in siege warfare and soon completely superseding traditional mechanical artillery. This paper examines the reasons why this important technological change occurred in the early fifteenth century and assesses the effectiveness of the English guns during the siege.

On 3 August 1460, King James II of Scotland was killed by a gun whilst besieging the English-held castle of Roxburgh. He did not die as a result of gunfire by the defenders of Roxburgh however.  Instead he was killed by a fragment of his own bombard, a Flemish gun called ‘The Lion’, which burst under the strain of firing.  In the words of the sixteenth century Scottish chronicler, Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie, the arrival of Scottish reinforcements:

In Henry V, the use of French by the French characters serves a purpose beyond the mere characterisation of them as French. This is something that has not been fully acknowledged by critics to date. This article demonstrates first the singularity of non-English characters actually speaking in a different tongue in Shakespeare's plays, and the way in which the text draws attention to such speech. Three crucial scenes are examined in which, unable to communicate semantically as full human beings, the French speakers are not only represented as vulnerable in their relationship to the English-speaking characters, but made so in relation to the Anglophone audience. These scenes are used to illustrate how foreign language operates dramaturgically to privilege the physicality of speech, thereby emphasising the bodily reality of the character/actor. The sexual implications of this in two of these scenes, and their echo of England's conquering of France, is also discussed. Because it is the act of speaking a largely incomprehensible language that draws attention to this physically-based vulnerability, the full resonance of larger themes of the play related to mortality, dominance, and nationhood can therefore be realised fully only in performance.

Focusing not just on the plays of Shakespeare's second tetralogy but also on Orson Welles' adaptive masterpiece, Chimes at Midnight, this essay argue that Gus Van Sant transforms the Prince Hal - Falstaff story (with a little help from Poins) into a dark fable of the American Dream.

Even with the multitude of religious, political, social and gendered readings of the character, critics have invariably (and understandably) tended to focus most often on the events leading up to and including the rejection scene in
2 Henry IV , and have given far less attention to the report of his death in Henry V. In light of criticism concerning the relationship between Falstaff and the actor Will Kemp, as well as the roles of the stage Vice and clown, this essay will focus on the report in an attempt to reinterpret it and its importance for the play as a whole. As will be seen, in performance it actually formed an integral part of an
iterative process that would have served to problematize the
presentation of kingship in Henry V on the early modern stage.

To discern the character and virtues of Henry Monmouth, the titular character of Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth, we must look at what he says and does. However, judging Henry's true character has proven frustratingly difficult to readers and critics because Henry possesses a singular talent for appearing other than he really is. "Never," the Bishops declare, "came reformation in a flood / With such a heady currance, scouring faults... ." Yet the man who donned the wolf's clothing so well is hard to trust in his new, seeming goodness, and thus Henry's virtue remains a difficulty. Indeed, for all of the learning, piety, nobility, and wisdom for which he has become renowned since ascending the throne, is he truly pious, truly just? This puzzle has divided critics of the play. Is Henry a paragon of Christian kings, as J.M. Walter presents the argument? Or, is he one of the craftiest of Machiavels, which is the more popular opinion of scholars such as Steven Marx and Roy Battenhouse? And yet others, such as Norman Rabkin, argue that Shakespeare wishes to encounter Henry as an enigma, forever impenetrable. The perplexity set before us in the play is no doubt appropriate, being rooted in the perplexity of Henry V himself. Shakespeare, however, deigns to leave us with some resource in discerning his own judgment of this enigmatic king. In the bones of the play itself, which is to say, in the events and themes he dramatizes, Shakespeare establishes a parallel with the first half of the Book of Joshua; in fact, the events in Jos. 4–8 in particular parallel the events in Acts III and IV of Henry V, and there are numerous other resonances between texts. As we consider the main action of the play and Henry’s reason for undertaking the invasion of France, we will
begin to see his motives and the humane ends he has in mind; yet, in
considering the Joshua parallel, we will see Shakespeare’s own comment on the compromised quality of this prudence.

Apart for a few episodes such as the battle of Cravant (1423), the defence of Paris (1429) and especially the capture of Joan of Arc at the siege of Compiègne (1430), the military aspect of Anglo-Burgundian alliance in 1420-1435 war is little known to general audience. This stage of the Hundred Years War is presented largely as a series of English successes in the 1420s followed by the defeats and setbacks after 1429. The present study aims to uncover this largely ignored aspect of one of the most dramatic stages of the Hundred Years War, which at a certain point brought the English to the walls of Orléans – an undoubted peak of their centuries-long efforts to subdue the French kingdom.
For the aims of research, the course of the Hundred Years War in the 1420s-early 1430s has to be considered not in the terms of the English fighting against the French but as a struggle of two alternative claims to the French throne, both of them relying on certain support among the French population. One of these suggested that the French crown remained with the Valois dynasty represented by Charles VII, the other tried to introduce the Dual Monarchy of England and France under the governance of the House of Lancaster, as formalised by the Treaty of Troyes (21 May 1420). The role of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, the most high-ranking French partisan of the Dual monarchy, as the pillar of the Lancastrian power in France becomes the subject of study. This raises the question of the system of obligations between the duke and the Lancastrian government, the modes of its practical exploitation and the significance of the duke’s contribution to the Lancastrian war efforts.
With this in mind, this study provides a chronological reconstruction of Anglo-Burgundian military cooperation in its development by placing it in a wider military and diplomatic context. Having assembled the evidence on the
practice of military assistance it proceeds to discussing the most widely employed models of cooperation and interaction between the allies eventually leading to a certain reconsideration of the whole nature of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. The research reveals the scale and continuity of the alliance which retained its importance from December 1419 to September 1435, the significance of the allies’ efforts in supporting each other and variety of its models and, finally, the crucial influence of the military power or weakness factor on the diplomacy and politics in France.

Resumo: Este artigo busca apresentar como as crônicas do século XV produzidas na Inglaterra, construíram uma memória sobre a Batalha de Agincourt que justificava os direitos do rei Henrique V e dos ingleses ao trono francês. Percebe-se que a memória sobre o evento é muito mais um discurso em torno da viagem e provações do rei e seu exército até a conquista da vitória. Une-se também com a construção da identidade inglesa na qual a imagem do rei tornou-se um elemento unificador das virtudes do próprio povo, representado pelo contexto bélico que foi a Guerra dos Cem Anos. 

Abstract: This paper aims to present how the chronicles of the 15 th century made in England build a memory about the Battle of Agincourt, which explained the rights of Henry V and the English to the French throne. We notice that the memory on the event is much more a speech around the trip and probation of the king and his army to the conquest of the victory. It is united with the construction of the English identity in which the image of the king became a unifier element of the people virtues, represented by the war context that was the Hundred Years War.

Henry V is a fascinating play on many levels. Read in the context of the surrounding plays, it is the culmination Prince Hal’s evolution to King Henry and everything that falls within that process. Many different perspectives have been offered on the characters and events of 1 and 2 Henry IV and Henry V. People have viewed Henry as everything from a fear-mongering war criminal to “the mirror of all Christian kings” and a hero to be worshipped and emulated. Robert Lane addresses this play in a fascinating article entitled “‘When Blood is Their Argument’: Class Character and Historymaking in Shakespeare’s and Branagh’s Henry V.” Lane studies how these different perspectives manifest themselves in different presentations of the play. In the article, he argues that the capturing of historical narratives on stage or in film is itself a form of historymaking. Lane argues that “(t)he impulse [to “modulate this play’s history into delight” (i.e. to engage in historymaking)] testifies to that history's fragility, the recurring need to recapture the matrix of sociopolitical dynamics, especially those of class, that are integral to the drama's significance”(27). Rather than being simply a retelling of events, it can be essentially a reinvention based upon what message the writer or director is seeking to convey. Specifically, the historymaking Shakespeare engages in is a representation of Henry V that highlights the dissonance between the higher and lower classes and ways that people seek to rectify this disharmony. Lane argues from a Marxist perspective of class relations and sees the Henry that Shakespeare envisaged as a man that utilizes war as a means to manipulate and control his people: “Henry's position as monarch depends upon the social distance, imaged here as geographical distance, between him and the commoners who were once his compatriots. His relationship to them encapsulates dynamics of solidarity and difference that, while personal to Henry, also characterize class interaction in Elizabethan society” (28). The Branagh representation, on the other hand, is more in line with how the Henry of Shakespeare’s creation would desire himself to be represented: “Through his own act of historymaking—the reshaping of Shakespeare's text—Branagh alleviates the discordance the original play enacts, replacing the "irrevocable ills" of its history (Hazlitt's phrase) with a reassuring confirmation of Henry and his military exploits” (28).

Some of the most fruitful interactions between the ‘airy nothing’ of a literary motif and its ‘local habitation’ – a physical and felt presence in a community – can be found in the radical adaptation of Shakespeare to the local exigencies. In particular, wartime theatre puts the relationship between politics and art in flux. How should the politicization of aesthetics be historicized in relation to an academic culture that distrusts the notion of l’art pour l’art and insists on reading literature politically? How do theatre artists adapt Shakespearean localities to enhance the perceived value of the performance and its venue? Literary meanings, especially those associated with wars, are created between the locality where various conventions of authenticity are derived and the locality where the performance takes place. The unexpected twists and turns of history can give significant meanings to these localities, including the performance venue, the setting of the plays, and the audience’s cultural locations.

While Hamlet – unlike Antony and Cleopatra or Henry V – does not feature war as a thematic focus except for occasional mentions of war in Horatio’s and Claudius’ comments such as ‘that fair and warlike form’, ‘this warlike state’, and Hamlet’s last question before his death: ‘What warlike noise is this?’, it has been staged in a wide variety of methods in many countries in the times of war. This chapter investigates a mid-twentieth-century site-specific interpretation of Hamlet: Jiao Juyin’s production of Hamlet (1942) in a Confucian temple in China when the country was resisting the Japanese military invasion, and before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) gained power. Figuring prominently in this case are collective cultural memory, local readings of Shakespeare informed by wartime ideologies, and the particularities of the site of performance.

The aesthetic practices of mid-twentieth-century China were punctuated by a keen sense of the political, and Shakespeare performances were increasingly informed by local knowledge. This is a period when Chinese theatre was in search of safe ‘apolitical texts,’ and also when the political turn in literary culture was alternately seen by different constituencies of the society as a left turn, a right turn, and a wrong turn, as communist China began to lay claims of local ‘ownership’ on select sets of foreign ideas including Marxism, the Stanislavskian acting method, and Soviet social and cultural institutions. The dual canonicity of Shakespeare as an author widely read and performed gained additional purchase through Karl Marx, who cites Shakespeare at length to support his arguments, and through the Russian and Soviet traditions of political Shakespeare.

Brian Lockey, Chapter 33, "Empire," pp. 598-616.

Ed. Arthur Kinney.

Forty original essays written by an international team of world-renowned scholars and new scholarly voices
    Comprehensive coverage of the key issues of Shakespeare Studies, including texts, performances, the cultural context out of which his writing emerged, and the current state of scholarship
    Fresh and stimulating readings of Shakespeare's work
    An indispensible volume for anyone studying Shakespeare, from newcomers to advanced scholars

Situated within the Oxford Handbooks to Literature series, the group of Oxford Handbooks to Shakespeare are designed to record past and present investigations and renewed and revised judgments by both familiar and younger Shakespearean specialists. Each of these volumes is edited by one or more internationally distinguished Shakespeareans; together, they comprehensively survey the entire field.

An essential resource for the study of Shakespeare, The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare is edited by esteemed scholar Arthur Kinney and contains forty specially written essays. It provides fresh and imaginative readings of his plays and poems, reflects on the current state of Shakespeare Studies, and suggests the likely future directions it will take. The Handbook is divided into five sections: 'Texts' explores how Shakespeare wrote, who he collaborated with, the ways in which his works were transmitted, and the reactions of his early readers; 'Conditions' examines the economic, social, artistic, and linguistic forces at play on Shakespeare; 'Works' discusses the various stages of his career; 'Performances' is concerned with issues such as the reception of his plays, the theatre business, and film adaptations; and 'Current Speculations' includes essays on topics ranging from the role of philosophical thought and the influence of classical sources to the relevance of empire, technology, religion, and law. By covering the range of Shakespeare's work in his time and ours, this myriad-minded book deepens and enriches our understanding of the great poet and unparalleled playwright's accomplishments.

Readership: Students and scholars of Shakespeare

This detailed, lavishly illustrated book chronicles the armour worn by English men-at-arms during the later phases of the Hundred Years War, as they fought through the great victories and humiliating defeats in France that would ultimately lead them into the Wars of the Roses.

For the first time, many unknown or rarely published visual and documentary sources have been brought together to reveal the beautiful and intimidating accoutrements of the war-like English.

Employing rich imagery in diverse media, combined with detailed technical and decorative analysis, Armour of the English Knight creates a unique visual journey through the physical world of the late medieval armoured warrior.

'Blanchot, Derrida, Levinas, Deleuze, Lyotard and Lacan: all the leading figures of "French theory" are conjured up in Jeremy Tambling's book in order to illustrate the uncanny sensation that "everything comes from the future" - for if "writing erases the present," it is "because the time of its being read is future".'

In the plays Henry V and Titus Andronicus, foreign language illustrate the conflicts caused by the lack of open communication. In Henry V, the French used in the scene helps identify the cultural and behavioral differences between England and France, helping to thicken the tension between the two countries, which is the central conflict of the play. In Titus Andronicus, the brief instances of Latin are used in moments where the characters expose a hidden truth or judgment to their family members, and it allows for an open communication that English fails to achieve.

As many scholars have pointed out, sixteenth-century England was a horse-owning, horse-riding culture, a place where the language of horses and horsemanship was pervasive.  Given such an environment, it is not surprising that the image of the horse was often deployed in metaphorical, proverbial, allegorical or otherwise symbolic ways.  This essay, however, sets the metaphors aside, following instead what nineteenth-century historian Harriet Ritvo has called the “unacknowledged metonymy” of animal discourse, a process by which discussions of real animals become the ground for “opinions and worries imported from the human cultural arena.”  In early modern England, one  significant anxiety was about the relationship between the English people and their regional environment. The natural environment was frequently perceived as determining both the constitution and the temperament of earthly creatures: this is the Galenic doctrine of geohumoralism.  Even the human soul was, for some writers, influenced by its natural environment.  These attitudes necessarily shaped emerging concepts of national and regional identity. “English-ness,” for example, was often  depicted as the result of an uneasy interplay between regional climate, including things such as “air” and “ground,” and more abstract notions of race or breed.  Nowhere are these concerns more effectively demonstrated than in the many texts devoted to horses, horsemanship, and horse breeding.  In particular, early modern writers’ attempts both to investigate and to defend the nature of the “English” horse are evidence of a controversy that contributes to the construction of nationality itself.  A nation of excellent horses is also perhaps a nation of excellent men.  And England in the late sixteenth century seemed to find grounds for doubt about both horses and men. The debate over the value of the English horse was thus part of a larger concern with the relationship between constant climatic influence and attempts to improve a “breed.”  The most famous literary representation of this concern is surely Shakespeare's Henry V.  Nationality and national identity have always been acknowledged as one of the main subjects of the play.  Some have even argued, as David Cairns and Shaun Richards do, that it “dramatizes ... the originating moment of nationhood.” It is also, however, a play pervaded by the language of race and breed expressed in terms of horses.  I argue that in this play and others, Shakespeare is echoing a larger cultural pattern centering on the body of the horse.  It is a pattern in which the Galenic determinism of climate, region, race, and breed confronted a nascent nationalism based on governance and disciplined management.

In Henry V, the use of French by the French characters serves a purpose beyond the mere characterisation of them as French. This is something that has not been fully acknowledged by critics to date. This article demonstrates first the singularity of non-English characters actually speaking in a different tongue in Shakespeare’s plays, and the way in which the text draws attention to such speech. Three crucial scenes are examined in which, unable to communicate semantically as full human beings, the French speakers are not only represented as vulnerable in their relationship to the English-speaking characters, but made so in relation to the Anglophone audience. These scenes are used to illustrate how foreign language operates dramaturgically to privilege the physicality of speech, thereby emphasising the bodily reality of the character/actor. The sexual implications of this in two of these scenes, and their echo of England’s conquering of France, is also discussed. Because it is the ...

December 2011. It is published verbatim with only minor editing to improve clarity. Miguel Berga – You are a man of the theatre by right of birth, aren’t you? How does it feel? Edward Hall – It never felt right to me, really. I suppose. MB – But you’ve gone as far as working with Peter Hall, your own father... EH – Oh, yes. We worked together on more than one occasion. Last time we worked together was in Denver on a ten-hour adaptation of the story of the Greeks and Trojans written by John Barton called Tantalus . In the end, it took a whole day to watch, from 10 in the morning until 10 at night – 12 hours. So yes, theatre has always been home, but then I think theatres are very natural places for children. As a child I always loved the theatre and I’ve seen my child come to feel the same way. You take a child and they recognize the exploration of the world in which they live through plays and I think as you grow up you can lose sight of that; it becomes less distinct sometimes. To ...

“¡Oh! Quién tuviera una musa de fuego” que le inspirase los artículos. “Un reino” por despacho, “príncipes” como editores “y monarcas para espectadores de la escena sublime”. Sólo así podríamos presentar, en toda su majestad, al “belicoso Harry (…) con la apostura de Marte”...