 Mynd i'r llynllwch Cymru i'r Llywodraeth Lawr, yng Nghymru yma yn unigol y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ynglynch yn ymwyllteid i'r llynllwch Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, i'w cerddwyr yn cyd-dwylo llyfr ynglynch, ynglynch yn llwyllteidl o bolywodraeth i'w cyfrifiadau i'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, i'r llunion i'r Llywodraeth, i'r llwyddau i'r llwyddoedd, sy'n effaith ar hanfer o boedic incubio Robert South'dyn o'r Llywodraeth a'n effaith arall. Denymnwch ar來 pawb i'r ddweudio. A dyma, ac wedi am ychydig i mi i gyd yn yn ôl. Ond yn ystafell, ddylai'r siaradau yn mi nad yw'n rhoi'w rwy'n mynd yw yma. Mae'r ffordd i'r ymgyrch yn ymddangos ym gynyddiad yun iesol ac rydw i'w rydw i'n dweud i'w'r amgylchedig. Ac berthynas i gael bwysig yw eich bwysig yng nghrifeth gyd yn gyntafol yn ystod o'r bwysig, felly rwy'n digwydd dwi'n llwyddiadol ar gyhoedd ym gymrydau. Mae'r bwysig ar gemyr yma ynglynfaen a rhaid i gael ymwysig. Felly roeddwn yn gwybod eu bethau. Instead I'm going to concentrate on attempts in English culture not to celebrate Ashengoo. In fact, to see Ashengoo as something about which the English should be rather ashamed. I'm going to start by saying a little about how Ashengoo was commemorated in English writing after 1415. Ond i'n meddwl cyfnod o'r ffordd o'r eich gaelio'r hynny'n ddod, i'n meddwl'r syddol yn eich glwith yng Nghymru, i'n meddwl'r llyfr adnoddol, o'r ymwysig iawn. Yr hyn, mae'r gaelio'r hynny'n gyfnodd, Robert Southley. Mae'n bod yn rhan o'r ddysgu sydd gennych y peth yng Nghymru, a'r pethau yn ymdyn nhw, yn ysbryd â'r oeddi Gwyddon, oedd y cwmhwyl a'r drwnghwyl yn 1796. Rwy'n fath yw'r cyhoedd yn defnyddio y byd yn gweithio y glwyddau yn yr ymddydd. Mae'r cyhoedd yn y cyhoedd yn âl drwng yn siŵr, yn lleol, yn llwgau cyllideb yn ysgrifiadau, yn llwgau'r yr ymddydd yn y cwmhwyl, yn llwgau'r ymddydd. Mae'r cyhoedd yn ysgrifiadau yn llwgau'r ymddydd yn llwgau'r ymddydd yn llwgau'r ymddydd yn llwgau'r ymddydd. i'w gwneud i'r uchwynig o'r ysgol ynglynig yw 100 o oed. Felly, yn gallu gynnal i'r pwy oedd y rymd, ac mae'n eu cyflwyddol i'r cyflwyntau bydd. A bod yn ymhynghoro'r cyflwyntau ar y cyflwyntau ac y bydd yn y pwy o'r cyflwyntau. Ond yw'r cyflwyntau yw'r cyflwyntau yw eich cyflwyntau yw'r cyflwyntau yw'r cyflwyntau, a'r cyflwntau yn y pwy o'r cyflwyntau yw'r cyflwyntau. iawn, i fynd i'r argymellau cyfnodol yn yn ysgafod o'r ysgafodd y salio. Mae'r bath o'r Maes Llywodraeth oedd yn ystod o'i llwyddoedd yn ymddangosol o'r bod ni'n ddod o'r mewn ein ddau. Mae'r 5 yma yn ymdeg yma ymddangosol o'r bath o'r Llywodraeth hwn yn ysgrifennu'r iawn. Mae'r rhannu a'r Rhannu, yw'r Lord Dey, yw'r Ffennor, yw'r Ffennor, yw'r Llywodraeth ymdeg. ac yn deallu'r rhaid i'r ddweud y dyfodol i'ch siaradau o sefydliadau a'r newydd o'r ystyried gyfryd, o'r canadaeth yn ymgyrchol. Felly, y pryd ystod y maesol yn rhaid i'r rhaid o'r rhaid i'r Cyfrindigol yn gyflym yn y llwythau, gallwn i'n meddwl i'r cyfrifol ar gyfer ymgyrchol, ac mae'n meddwl yn ffaint o'r cyfrifol yn ymgyrchol, o'r cyfrifol yma, John Stowe, Edward Horwld, Grafton, I've got a holy chair for those people. But from very early on, there's always been a literary element to this commemoration in the form of song, poetry, and drama. At most famously of all the rules of Shakespeare's, the life of Henry V at 1599. And there are many, many other examples, and Anne Cameron's done a great deal to facilitate the development and significance. So I won't dwell on them further, other than to make a couple of central points. Firstly, given the significance of literature in preserving the value of rational thought, I don't think it's surprising that one of the most important challenges to the celebration of the battle came in the form of a poet, South East Joe Mark. Secondly, aspects of these literary forms make it very clear why the battle became an important place in historical memory and why it was exceptionally difficult to challenge the idea of rational thought as something to celebrate. It was common, for instance, to emphasise that this was a victory of David over the likes of vastly outnumbered English forces who defeated the cream of the likes of France. It never also went so far as to claim that 21 Englishmen had put to fly to 12,000 Frenchmen in a marsh, as schoolboys were called in their exercises in the 1930s. It was certainly the case that English were this happy few, as Shakespeare has to say, who couldn't feel pride at this proof of superior English battle. Moreover, while this was a victory for the skill and bravery of an English monarch who directed and inspired his troops in battle, it was also a victory for the common man, as exemplified by the English bowman's triumph over the French knights of horseback as detailed in various battles like Agincourt or English bowman's glory. Everyone could take pride in Agincourt. Finally, these works tended to appear to be revived when conflict with the French was looming or actually. They served to reflect and reinforce contemporary patriotic feelings and Francophobia as well as to celebrate the past. So, for instance, Michael Greaton's poem, The Battle of Agincourt, 1627, now, it was best known for its first line, A Fair to the Women of France, was published at the time of the Anglo-French War of 1627 to 1629. The definitive Agincourt play, like Shakespeare's End of the Fifth, was performed in common garden every year during the Seven Years' War against France, 1756 to 1763. Telling me that the playbills at this time often advertise performances as the End of the Fifth with the conquest of the French at Agincourt, to see no message. These circumstances, remembering Agincourt was at least a passion. So that raises two questions. Why would anyone in Britain want to contest the celebration of Agincourt? And how could you? How could this be done? Should anyone want to? Well, I think the most likely occasion on which anyone would want to dispute this big-on play of the Agincourt was if the country was engaged in a conflict with France that was controversial within Britain and that many British people opposed. And this is exactly what happened, I think, for the first time when Britain and France went to war on the 1st of February, 1793. Most conservatively minded people supported the war, both through expelled French forces from the Low Countries, if they'd occupied in 1792, and to oppose the principles of the French Revolution, which had taken a decidedly more radical term of the execution of Louis XVI in January 1793. But the revolution had many sympathisers in Britain who objected to a war with France when France was the home of the principles of liberty, republicanism and religious equality embodied in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the French Convention elected in 1792. People who felt war against rights had been engineered by reactionary forces in Europe who were determined to crush the new French Republic. In these circumstances, it was possible for opposing peoples about Agincourt to emerge in this country. On the one hand, as much expected, among the dengwys of patriotic effusions that war brought forth after 1793, there was a surge of material celebrating the victory after the 21st of October, 1415. Shakespeare's Hand in the Fifth was performed 16 times in 1789 to 1792, as tensions with France rose with John Kemble, the leading actor of the day, in the central role. After war, it was declared in 1793, in 155, with the takings from one performance in 1803 donated to the patriotic fund and the concluding occasional address to the volunteers. Michael Dreadton's Battle of Agincourt was republished in 1793. There was a rush of op populist material of such balance. King Henry V's Compress of France in 1795 and the Bowman of Kent, which appeared in the sporting magazine of 1793. Radicals in this country were not willing to be silenced in their opposition to the war and their defence of the principles of the French Revolution. They responded not just with speeches and newspaper articles, but with novels and poetry that defended the French or Jacqueline Caules. Amongst those young radicals was the poet Robert Souding, still only 18 in 1793, when he was declared. Despite his youth, Souding been writing extensively since childhood and he was determined to seal his fame by producing an epic poet, the highest form. His historical interests were by ranging and he played one to become a historian of Brazil and of the potential war and he toyed with the idea of national ethics on the subject of the diversity of Brutus, King Egbert of Wessex and Richard III. Not all the ones I'm going to say. But the war with France sent him in a new direction and in July 1793 he decided his poem would be set in France during the English War and that he intended to directly challenge the celebrated discourse that surrounded Ashing Court. Souding decided the best way would be by not concentrating on Ashing Court instead. He would write about Henry Dier's war from a French perspective and he would focus on a French epic hero not on Henry V. His subject would be, there she is, Joan of Arc. That's the picture of her that appears in the second edition of Souding's poem. His subject would be Joan of Arc and the French victories at Follyam and Pate in 1429 and turning once another his war that led eventually to the final French victories in 1453. Ashing Court would be dealt with in the South East Côme but only margin and a retrospect and it would be contextualised as only one English success within an overall narrative of French victory. Souding believed that in both 1429 and 1793 a French victory was just and right and that if English audience could be brought to see this with a hundred years more they might have accepted in the 1790s. Quite as much as any patriotic performance of Henry V. Souding's poem was meant to have a contemporary application. As Souding defiantly sated in his introduction to Joan of Arc, 1796 and this release of declaration of war on the Green Republic it has been established as a necessary rule for the epic that the subject be national. To this rule I acted in direct opposition and chosen for the subject of my poet the defeat of my country. If among my readers there be one who can wish success to injustice because his countrymen supported it I desire not that man's approvation. So you can't say that anymore. All Souding had to do, of course, was to actually write his poem and that proved a rather complex process. After he'd read up on the events connected to Joan of Arc's life and some standard histories the first draft was written in six weeks in August or September 1793. As a traditional friend of poems this version round of 12 books had dealt with a very concentrated version of events dating Joan's life in 1429. The announcement of her divine mission her acceptance of the Court of Charles VII the lifting of the Siege of Ornill by French forces inspired by Joan the French victory of Pate and as a finale the coronation of Charles VII at Reeds. As this was a poem about the triumph of France Joan's betrayal on execution in 1431 was not to dealt with in the action of the power of him. This basic structure remained in place through a series of large-scale rewrites. Suffering of publisher in 1794 in Joseph Cottle, a young Bristol bookseller he wrote the poem in May to November 1975 as it was going to compress compressed it to ten books showing some of the characters reduced to supernatural elements accepted some contributions from his brother-in-law Samuel K. Colridge and 1796 the poet that had published. Sounded he remained rather unsatisfied with it though based on such a revision to the second edition of 1798 removing Colridge's contributions as the two of them had fallen out and then there are further revisions in 1886 and 1857 that the basic structure and message of the poet had never changed. Now this long drawn-out process of composition reflected Soundie's struggles to find his individual voices a poet and to break out into traditional format of the classical epic poet but they also reflected the difficulty of the task in setting something. By choosing German arc as opposed to Henry V as a Ciarau he had to find a way of overcoming Germans to set a negative perception in English minds in addition to demonstrating that her roots of the French course was entirely justified. Shakespeare in the 6th part I had followed English chronographs by Collin Shed in the language of Jonah which he believed the devil and that image was still current in the 1790s Soundie was outraged by a performance he saw of Common Garden in February 1798 of an entire new grand historical ballet of action called Jonah Bark or the Made of All Leagues the climax of which was Jonah being carried off to hell by Beelzebarn. There were definitely to a 1790s audience his expectations of some romance in their ballades Jonah's merger for fighting the English in the ballet of jealousy of his sister's relationship with the English commandant Torbott. Most of it is actually a love triangle. The skeptical British historians like David Hume, the sister of England, Soundie Dwellers, the source of his poem and a better for his purposes as they do with Jonah's diluted fanatic. Soundie's solution was nothing if not radical. He presented Jonah as a French revolutionary of the 1790s who just happened to be living in the 1420s and as a member of the French peasantry who represented the striving of ordinary people for a more just society. In his capable historical facts meant the climax of the poem was a crown of the Charles VII of Reams but the poem's last section is an impassioned lecture for Jonah Gibson and King. She announces that she has anointed the chief servant of the people and wants him not to lead his people into wars to aggrandise thyself or to ignore the feeble cry of asking hunger to ask him to feed the hungry ones and be the orphan's father. If not, highly gods, though fleshed in slaughter will be weak to save the tyrant on the blood cemented throne that totters underneath him. In other words, the king can rule as long as he serves the people if he doesn't offer his head as we do in the 16th. And the bison folly of the king's current is represented in an emphasis on the unclattering of light compared to Jonah's simple peasant virtues. Moreover, Jonah represents a dazed religious sensibility, much like the ideas popularised by Rousseau Voltaire with a widespread formal French revolutionaries that added this type of soundly rather than state-spotted white-clothed Christianity. Jonah's been raised in the depths of the forest by Bissardo, an old hermit, as she says to the doctors of theology who examined the court of Charles VII. In forest shade, my infant years trained up knew not devotion's forms. The children did mass, the silver altar, religious row, the mystic way from the hallowed cup. God's priests created are to me unknown. Instead to her, she says, all nature's voice proclaimed before good parents. Jonah's religion was nature and the heart of man, not the church. But of course she did and founds the theologians that were going on to be the French literature. So in the South East Coast, Jonah's not a ritual fanatic. She represents universal republican values, values that are as applicable in England as in France. And she's also a radical hero who stands in direct contrast to the odious end of the 5th. She's a peasant, rather than a king and a disciple of Rousseau, not a pious son of a church, or just an actor. Now, Sally, of course, also had to demonstrate the justice of the French cause in that religious war. And he did this by making it a scene that runs through the whole poet. From the first book, there are constant reminders that it is the English who are the invader. And they're often just referred to that as the invader. And it was the horrors of the war they were affected by France. Fertile fields, late waste, dispeak or hamlets, the long widowed groan and the pale orphans people quite afraid. The English have consistently adused what we call now war crimes. Their savage fury spares in upgrade age and locks the infant streak as it does ride upon his cursed lance and forces to his fowl embrace to the wife even on her murdered husband's gasping corpse. They refuse, the Germans offer to retire to England in peace. And the English commanders, Tottenham Paustof, are represented as a bulwish in Bellicoste. There are no more ways than in Paustof's case to particularly brave. After Germany defeats them and crowns Charles VII of the Reams, the Poemens of the Prayer ever made it all just to give to the arms a freedom of such success. That's why it became clear that the French victory is to pursue a tribe of justice and one that the English is to pursue a daughter's. The Saltyfodd he couldn't write a poem in the Hundred Years War and totally ignore how she wrote it. If he was going to change his audience's view of that conflict and thus hopefully at the end of the French war in the 70s and 90s, he had to also make use in the battle to which they primarily interpreted that war in an entirely different way. So, rather than writing a poem in the centrepiece of the poem, it's merely accounted in retrospect. In Book Two of Joan of Arc, making it clear that Agincourt was not the most important event in the Hundred Years War and that while it was an English victory, it shouldn't give the English its confidence that it would defeat Revolutionary France, as Agincourt had been followed by the French victor Olyan Hacate among the main features of Joan of Arc. The Saltyfodd matters there. He felt he had this thoroughly dismantled Agincourt's image as a glorious victory that inspired Agincourt to rebel against France. The Saltyfodd did this by having the events of Agincourt recounted by a long Frenchman, Bertrand, who had fought there. Thus giving his readers an account of the battle of the Saltyfodds as an equal war, a French name, from a French perspective. So, Book Two of Bertrand describes the valor of France's leaders, particularly Charles de Olyan, who was just a poet and was a fan of the Saltyfodds, and provides a malevolent role for all the many noble French dead. Saltyfodd reverses the usual image of the French superiority of numbers in the battle by not describing his own stages and concentrates on his final moments when it is Olyan and Bertrand who are surrounded and moving down about the numbers. Like walls, they hem to see them fierce and unhooked for compress all around our dead and dying country. After the battle is over, Saltyfodd makes a crucial point about how his audience should interpret this individual victory. In Shakespeare's End of the Fifth, we see matters of the English perspective. It's reported that the king had learnt the treacherous French and looted his supply chain and massacred the boys, charged with guarding it, as the treacherous has expressly advanced the law of arms in response to the invasion of the king of the killing of his French prisoners. In Joan of Arc, we see things from the French perspective. Bertrand has fought valid in the battle on his prisoner. Isn't there anything about him into the supply chain? Saltyfodd mentioned it. All Bertrand knows is that the king has ordered the bound prisoners to be sorted. Bertrand escapes because his captain refuses to fire the king's orders. Here, it's the English, not the French, who ended the battle with war crime for killing of prisoners of war. Saltyfodd mentioned in Joan of Arc, 1796, the English bowman in their commoners' victory over the French knights. They said he concentrates on Henry V and the murder of the French captives is not at the end of the poem's condemnation of the English king. Bertrand, and he's a very unloved chap Bertrand, Bertrand has had the bad luck to be trapped in his family inside rural when it's besieged by Henry V from 1418-13. Bertrand accounts that Henry's ambitious ear best pleased with war's power and the throne of death was death to prayer on behalf of the suffering inhabitants and then refused to let the children hold and infirmly to the city. Instead he relaxed his stern facing to savage merrimiths slock in their agonies. When Saltyfodd reminds his poem in 1798, a footlose to book two were expanded to give get more evidence of Henry's monstrous behaviour, his despotic barbarity in expelling the population of our flur his execution of several leading citizens of Cull and making the local French characters as you know, waiting for dinner after the battle. In fact, Saltyfodd said, the more I learn of his character as Henry this character, the more detestable it appears. And he took to refer to him as our wicked Henry V, whom I take to be as a bad man as ever war a crab. That's like worse than me in this town. So, instead of actually thought as a victory for the English bone, when it comes to Joan of Arc, a victory by the English king and the very worst of English kings, disgraced by a record of war crimes and barbarism. The round of auto, when Joan was taken on a dante-type tour of the underworld in book nine, she encounters Henry V in hell, where he's identified with considerable irony as that hero conqueror or as in call. His place is among the murderers of mankind and the shade Henry V confesses to Joan, I sent aboard murder and rape and therefore am I doomed? The contrast between the actions of royalty and the heroic present with Joan couldn't be more direct. And it embodies the contrast between what one stands for both in the 15th century and the 17th of the 90s and the ideals of the revolution that had been abolished in the early period of France. So, what was the impact of Sally's epic poem when it finally appeared in the end of 1795? Essentially, it was a succédor scandal. As Sally said, it was the means by which was named first became known to the public and acquired a notoriety which has never been loosened. It's sold out at the price of the beginning and was recruited 30 times in 1895. Generally, radical reviewers admired Joan and so it did work on a certain way. The monthly review was clear that Sally had chosen the subject with a view to modern application and quoted Joan's encounter with Henry V as in hell of length as a specimen of the power of spiritual service. The conservative reviewers of the hands of Joan were young and furious. Is there not a squint of malignity, a trecherous illusion in such a picture? And was it not a seditious rather a poetic spirit that first contemplated the main warning as the hero of an English epic at that time? A well-known poet, Anna Seward of the Swan of Litchfield was moved to write our own poem in response to Joan Mark being a morning chronicle in which he particularly attacked South East Betrayal of Henry V who graced the crowded war of Britannia's burst and Sally's attempt to turn to deadliest Akinat the long reeds of Assylpoll. For Seward it was crucial to defend Henry's reputation as this was central to the whole justification of being in each position in that number of years war and thus by application of the war of the Seward of 90s. To Seward Henry was entirely connecting way to the war of France. What claimed he then from France at the sword's point but seeking rise to declare. Moreover, Henry was not yielding war crimes as he couldn't be because he's an English king. As England who was marshaled fire applauding ages that pronounced the dawn with very many sins. Seward urged Sally not to waste his time on lamenting the French dead of 100 years war but consider those filled by the French revolutionists thus slipping into her poem her own justification for way to the war in the 70s 90s. Joan of Arc was hated by conservatives but it was so well known that it became a kind of shorthand way of referring to Sally himself. As we can see here he's portrayed as the jackass heady worshipper at the Cornucopia of Ignorance in Jane Gilraith's famous cartoon The New Morality. And you can see that's Sally there in the jacket with her asses head on and you know it's Sally who does what's sticking out of his pocket a copy of Joan of Arc. So you see Joan of Arc you know the Sally but what was the wider impact of his attempt to transform the English way of living in that country? Well, Joan of Arc was part and I think the principal part in why he revived the epic writing in Britain at the end of the 18th century. And some of these epics followed Sally and take an irrational approach his publisher Pottl, for instance, wrote an epic called Alfred, an epic poem in 1801. But most of the epic poems of this time were stored to the conservator by the poet Loretta Henry Pye's table on Alfred or Sir James Blann and Burgess's written the first 1801. If you think Joan of Arc's don't confirm you should try to read English in the first. It's one of the worst poems in the internet. The hundred years war did not become a popular setting for epic poetry. I think the only other epic of the time set in the hundred years war is Margaret Holford Holston's Margaret O'nchew which comes out in 1816 and his own little talk. I think the only epic poem that followed Sally if you're taking an impulse to think as he said or think was Thomas Northall Washington on Liberty of the Sword of 1809. Some radical writers like Hazlett read with Sally and express them in the slide behind the fifth. The Hazlett he was just fond of war with no company. But that certainly didn't become a predominantly view. And it took a long time for Joan of Arc to become a plausible English hero. I think it's not until Feminist become interested in her in the late 19th and early 20th century and then the lights with France and the war part that she gives to those in this country. And as you recall has continued to be celebrated as he break the English victory especially in times of war down into the 20th century as witnessed by Arthur H. and the Spurs War War store in the Bowman by a D14 and of course Olivier's patrots of the film Henry V which came about in 1944. Even Sally eventually modified the views. He never explained Joan of Arc or he wrote just a little message but he's opinion of the justice liability of war with France denoted. After the podium became Emperor of the French in 1804 South increasingly supported the British war effort against France as an attempt to defeat the tyrant of the podium who rivaled him in the 5th so he won't fight it back. Amongst France in Vegas, Spain and Portugal in 1807 to 1808 he saw the war as a struggle for national liberation of other support and he ended up celebrating the final defeat of France at the Order of the Moon in 1815 and his own poem The Poets pilgrimage to the Order of the Moon which came about in 1880s. As you recall became one of the English so France was happy to mention in some of his later poems such as his funeral song which was a shah to the owner of St George's Day. By the 1820s Sally improved a long way from his early errativism and became a rather idiosyncratic conservative and poet laureate. His view of Henry V took longer to alter the king was certainly not included in the sovereigns celebrated in Sally's poem A Vision of Judgment by the Virgin of Mars in spite of his son Sally's friend who lived in America. By the time of Sally but one of his final works his Lies for British Islands which came out in 1833 to 1840 he comes to some final conclusions about the events improved about 50 years before. As you recall he conceived by then was one of those ever memorable victories and the memories of which he continues to support the national spirit whereby they are achieved. He still believed when looking at Henry V's walls knowing he's looked in delight to dwell on the details. Henry was a merciless conqueror and many of us are feared what he wants to do about it. The best Sally would say about Henry was that at least some of his piety was genuine. Though ambition and policy may have ended largely in his motives devotional so. So looking at Sally's lack of success in redefining the views of our asian core and his own gradual retreat from his early radicalism one conclusion might be that it's just not possible to sustain the anti-cash in Caroline that Sally had taken in 1793. Celebrating views of the battle were too deeply entrenched in English culture and it was only in particular the very particular circumstances of the 1790s when a war in France was deeply appellwised by substantial sections of British opinion that there was any possibility of challenging these views and then only including. However, I'm not going to aim for that cause because I think it does need to be qualified because Jonah Arc was not the only work that Sally wrote in the 1790s that was set to an amputee as war that was a lot of art. Also the person that played in 1794 entitled What's Tyler? or What's Tyler after that occurred? As you might guess it's theme was the leader of the peasants' revolt of 1781 and in three acts it takes the audience from the origins of the rebellion in Watt's village to his defeat at Blackheath by the forces of Richard II. And as you might perhaps expect the play recurses many of the themes of Jonah Arc. What Tyler represents is the virtuous common people standing up against injustice and tyranny. And the priest John Paul articulated the deist natural illusion that Jonah Arc espouses. The contemporary application of this just in Jonah Arc has now been celebrated in the peasant rebels of 1781 some early for-riders of the English radicals of the 1790s. But what Tyler was also quite as explicitly as Jonah Arc protested against war with frogs. The revolt is ignited in Act 1 by the depredations of the tax governor. And Tyler and his friend Hock make clear that the unjust taxes that their rebels are being levied to madly prosecute the war, draining our wealth, distressing our poor peasants, slaughtering our youths and all that crown our chiefs with glory. Tyler follows this with this regained declaration. Think ye, my friend, that I, a humble blacksmith here at Defford, would part with these six growths earned by hard toil all that I have to massacre the Frenchmen, to murder those enemies men I never saw did not the state compel me. The plague was not published by Ridway in Silence, the radical publisher to himself, sent it in 1794. But, much to his embarrassment, it was published in 1817, when Saudi's views had substantially changed. His attempt to halt his publication by judging failed over a copyright dispute. And the fact that it was authored by someone who was by then a well-known conservative writer made the authority to wear it in embarrassment and might be called to be one publishing that was prosecuted sedition. As a result, what Tyler became one of the most explicitly radical publications to make its way into the public domain in the late 1810s. And as the copyright dispute is, anyone could publish it in two positions without paying Saudi a paying to add insult to injury. As a result, it may, we don't know exactly, but it may have sold as many as 30,000 to 40,000 copies, making it, in terms of the time, a huge bestseller. It's the only one in Saudi's works that puts him in the lead with the real big hitters, Byron and some other scots. Saudi was mortified. Despite his best efforts in 1817, he'd given enormous boost to what Tyler's reputation as a radical hero. Saudi's play became a favourite of Chartist leaders like George Julian Harley. And if you look at the Chartist press in the 1830s and 1840s, it's quite, it's a bit quite widely printed in the movement's verse and balance sheets. Walt Tyler appeared on the balance at reform meeting demonstrations in 1867, favourite, like, extended vote. He was celebrated by William Morris in the Green and John Bowell. The Lady and Child of London County Council named the road in Leroyshire after him in 1934. And as I don't wear this myself, on the 600th anniversary of the peasants' revolt in 1981, Walt Tyler was commemorated in just about everything from a socialist workers party pamphlet by Paul Foote to a servant by the Archbishop of Canterbury, standing on the wagon at Black Hills. A slogan of the Poltax Writers in 1990 was a page of Walt Tyler, and today you can even enjoy the pints of itch and valley, what Tyler ale you wish. So I think Saudi played a crucial part boosting Walt's reputation as a radical hero. The younger radical Saudi may have failed to destroy his reputation for his place in each elections, but he did come to establish Walt Tyler's importance as a symbol for radicals. Some of them from the Hundred Years War whom radicals could celebrate as an alternative to the cult of Henry V. And in doing so, Saudi cemented one way in which Ashley Corr can be problematised. As Walt Tyler says in Sally's play, French are not his enemies. His enemy is here in England. And that enemy is those who run the English state and who seek to involve what in wars which only serve to glorify those in power. The real enemy of ordinary English people is here, not abroad, in France or elsewhere. And the people's interests and the cause of justice would be much better served by concentrating on reform at home than on aggressive wars elsewhere. As a critique of foreign wars, including the Hundred Years War, that's an argument that's proved much more resilient than Sally's attack on the celebration of Ashley Corr. And it's still very much with us today. Thank you.