Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Henriad
>
Henry V General Discussion
date
newest »
newest »
Shakespeare refers more to 'wheels' than to X's. I don't have time to go looking for them right now but I remember many a 'wheel of x' quote from previous reading.
P.S. I haven't started Henry V yet, I'm not even halfway through Henry IV part 2. A bit of a Shakespeare overdose so I'll have to get a push from somewhere to catch up.
In the forward to the Arden edition, T.W. Craik poses questions that have informed my reading of Henry V and may interest others. I paraphrase and comment...
Is the play a national epic with a heroic warrior-king or is it an anti-war satire dominated by a self-interested hypocrite?
Is there a way to read it that reconciles both?
In 1977 Norman Rabkin published an article in Shakespeare Quarterly titled "Rabbits, Ducks and Henry V." The title refers to the drawing that can be easily viewed as a rabbit or a duck, but the viewer cannot see both simultaneously.
Access to the full article requires subscription at jstor, but here is a decent introductory summary for those who may be interested.
https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1309...
And,a final question: Is how we see the play possibly more a reflection of who we are than of the text itself?
Is the play a national epic with a heroic warrior-king or is it an anti-war satire dominated by a self-interested hypocrite?
Is there a way to read it that reconciles both?
In 1977 Norman Rabkin published an article in Shakespeare Quarterly titled "Rabbits, Ducks and Henry V." The title refers to the drawing that can be easily viewed as a rabbit or a duck, but the viewer cannot see both simultaneously.
Access to the full article requires subscription at jstor, but here is a decent introductory summary for those who may be interested.
https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1309...
And,a final question: Is how we see the play possibly more a reflection of who we are than of the text itself?
I don't the smallest bit of anti-war satire in this play. I get an epic presentation of the national mythology. Stout-hearted Englishmen (and Welshmen) humbled the proud chivalry of France against imposing odds. The Chorus heightens the epic feeling of the piece. Henry V is the perfect king: personally brave, hardy, confident, inspiring, but willing to visit his troops incognito to gauge their morale, to banter with them, without taking any advantage of his rank. We have the parallel low story of Pistol as a fail, but that only serves to heighten the nobility of the main story, like the speech of the troublemaker Thersites in Book II of the Iliad. Of course, we have to explain why France won the war and Henry went back to London instead of gaining the throne of France--for that we have his sudden infatuation with Princess Katherine, I guess.
I liked Henry V as an actual, viewable, play better than the other three in the Henriad as viewable plays. Yet I found that in reading, I engaged more deeply in the first three.
But thought of something this morning re HV.
Last night I watched a Youtube re Agincourt the Battle. Done by ... Battle Sleuths or Battle Detectives or something along those lines. Extremely interesting.
They discussed long bows. The weapon which is generally given much credit as the reason that the English beat the French.
The long bow... is composed of yew... which is really two types of wood: There is the core... an extremely strong wood... but inflexible... and were the bow only this core wood... it would break.
Yew also has an outside covering which is very flexible. This flexible exterior, laying atop the hard, inner core, protects... prevents the core from breaking.
Then, too, the long bow has the tremendous power it has because the shaft of the arrow is pulled back so very far... all that power is held there... in tension... and when it is released, the result is unlike that of any other bow of the time.
So... I saw a clip of the Kenneth B "Tennis Balls" Speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAAH...
His days as Hal were very flexible.
But his inner strength, his inner focus, his strong core, were always there... protected from the stresses he couldn't handle at that age by his light-hearted flexible company.
But in this Tennis Balls scene. The king's inner core can be seen.
It struck me that although the king's manner did seem self-contained, and well-controlled... that there is such power held back... and his words become more intense... and yet he is well-controlled...
Henry V, I think, is England's long bow.
But thought of something this morning re HV.
Last night I watched a Youtube re Agincourt the Battle. Done by ... Battle Sleuths or Battle Detectives or something along those lines. Extremely interesting.
They discussed long bows. The weapon which is generally given much credit as the reason that the English beat the French.
The long bow... is composed of yew... which is really two types of wood: There is the core... an extremely strong wood... but inflexible... and were the bow only this core wood... it would break.
Yew also has an outside covering which is very flexible. This flexible exterior, laying atop the hard, inner core, protects... prevents the core from breaking.
Then, too, the long bow has the tremendous power it has because the shaft of the arrow is pulled back so very far... all that power is held there... in tension... and when it is released, the result is unlike that of any other bow of the time.
So... I saw a clip of the Kenneth B "Tennis Balls" Speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAAH...
His days as Hal were very flexible.
But his inner strength, his inner focus, his strong core, were always there... protected from the stresses he couldn't handle at that age by his light-hearted flexible company.
But in this Tennis Balls scene. The king's inner core can be seen.
It struck me that although the king's manner did seem self-contained, and well-controlled... that there is such power held back... and his words become more intense... and yet he is well-controlled...
Henry V, I think, is England's long bow.
Roger B. makes a spirited defense of the play as a national epic and Adelle responds to King Henry V as exemplar of English virtue. All good and all fair. They both see the rabbit, and I can't disagree. Just for fun, let me pose some things to think about that may reveal the duck.
These may be elements on which to build a case that Hal is more anti-hero than paragon, perhaps a self-interested hypocrite rather than a mythic hero for the British Empire.
1. Goddard sets the frame: The long shadow that the incarcerated Mortimer casts across this play is not visible from a seat in the theater. But it is from the higher vantage point of poetry read in solitude."
2. He allows himself to be bribed by Canterbury to help fund the war he is already determined to fight in exchange for defeat of a bill the church is opposed to.
3. The justification, or causus belli, put forth in great detail actually justifies Mortimer's claim to the throne better than Hal's. No mind. (And don't ask me to explain it; I am as confused by the scene as anyone! I am taking Goddard's word for it. I must say though that the whole staging reminded me of Colin Powell speaking to the UN in the run up to Iraq; it all sounds good even if, on examination, it would prove baseless.)
4. It would be interesting to see how an actor playing Henry would listen to the long speech of justification--with interest, comprehension,confused, bored. All he really wants is the Archbishop's blessing for what he intends to do. After the speech he says simply: "May I with right and conscience make this claim?"
5. Ely, Exeter and Westmoreland (at 1.2.115-130) give us more pragmatic justifications for the invasion, among them: a) in memory of others who've been slain, b) to live up to the family reputation, c) because you are a warrior, d) to establish your own reputation, d) other kings want you to do it, e) you have the "cause, means and might", [note that the word "cause" here means "wealth] f) the people will follow you.
6. Henry both allows Canterbury to discount the threat from Scotland and simultaneously send a smaller force than needed to France as a hedge against the Scots. (1.2.120-220)
7. In the tennis ball scene (which historically did not happen, lending credence to the satirical reading), I respect Adele's views about Henry's manner. Another way of reading the scene, is that he allows the French ambassador to get under his skin and make the dispute personal. Defense for this reading is the shift in pronoun (I.2.265-298) from the stately "we" when speaking of his wastral youth to the personal "I" when threatening France.
8. While the St Crispin's day speech (which is not really a speech but, rather, comments to his inner circle) is more famous, his exhortations at 3.1 are a better reflection of his understanding of what is needed in battle. What does it take to go "once more into the breech?" The metaphors are all animalistic: "Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide..." etc. I am not saying this is not the smart way to fire up the troops. Either win the town or "Fill up the wall with our English dead." When Falstaff said that one dead soldier is exchangeable with another, we were abashed. Is Hal's cavalier use of soldiers' lives really that different?
9. This speech is the first of two times Henry will suggest that fighting will ennoble the soldiers (even if only figuratively). He says, "There is none of you so mean and base/That hath not noble luster in your eyes." This is right before comparing them to greyhounds in the slip. I suggest the juxtaposition could be considered satirical. Excerpted and anthologized, the Crispin speech is rightly admired. But the rhetoric of all sides in warfare is comparable. No matter how poetic, it is not elevating; it is indoctrination.
10. Notwithstanding this and, at 4.3.63, the statement that fighting will "gentle their name," when the Herald reads the list of English dead it includes four titled slain and "none else of name." His promises are likely to be hollow.
[In fairness, historically, during the next campaign, Henry ordered that soldiers bearing coats of arms that had not been approved should be stripped of them, "except for those that bore arms with us at the Battle of Agincourt.]
11.Henry's prayer before the battle at Agincourt (IV.1.286 ff) is not a display of faith: It reflects guilt and bargaining with God. This undermines Henry's insistence after the battle (Non Nobis and Te Deum that God be praised.
12. His march from Harfleur to Calais is both strategically and tactically misconceived. It is Henry's fault that his army is debilitated by dysentery and good fortune --like the muddy field in which the mounted French bog down--rather than military skill that leads to victory at Agincourt.
13. In contrast to the earlier plays we do not get scenes of valiant soldiers, nor is Henry shown fighting in the five scenes devoted to the fight; he gets reports of the battle instead. (Not surprisingly, movie directors do not follow this faithfully.) Instead the soldiers we meet are either satirical (Fluellen) or comic (Pistol) or criminal (Nym, Bardolf).
14. The execution of the French prisoners may be justified tactically, but is still abhorrent morally.
15. As for his wooing of Katherine it may be "sudden infatuation" as Roger suggests, but it can also be seen as politically expedient. He wants to possess her as he possesses his conquest ("for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it; I will have it all mine..."). What he really needs from her is to be a good "soldier breeder" and bear him an heir who will solidify England's hold on France. Charming as his play acting the bumbling suitor may be, it is still play acting. Auden with hyperbole called it "the most brutal scene in Shakespeare," comparing it to Richard III's wooing of a woman whose husband he has just killed.
16. A final point against the national epic reading is that the play ends not with a myth making tone but with two comic scenes and a decidedly downbeat Epilogue. True, says the chorus, "Fortune made his sword/ By which the world's best garden he achieved." But the final image is a reminder of the catastrophes that will follow. Yes, we are reminded, this is a high water mark, but we are also reminded that plays already written (Henry VI, 1, 2 and 3 and Richard III) have showed the reality of what the Duke of Albany at the end of King Lear calls the "gored state." The last words of the Henriad undermine all the glory and leave us to ponder the truth that, like a theatrical performance itself, it is all an illusion.
If anyone has read this far, they may wonder why in this long laundry list of items, some big some trivial, I have not mentioned the scene where Henry disguises himself and encounters the soldiers Williams and Bates. Although I think the scene supports the reading above, including some satire, I also think it is a really important scene and should be discussed on its own merits. I wanted to leave it in case others wish to weigh in with their own interpretations.
Going back to my original post, the amazing thing about this play is that it supports alternative readings. I'd welcome hearing anyone else who wishes to pick apart my points, read the same speeches and incidents differently, or support the alternate case with further examples.
These may be elements on which to build a case that Hal is more anti-hero than paragon, perhaps a self-interested hypocrite rather than a mythic hero for the British Empire.
1. Goddard sets the frame: The long shadow that the incarcerated Mortimer casts across this play is not visible from a seat in the theater. But it is from the higher vantage point of poetry read in solitude."
2. He allows himself to be bribed by Canterbury to help fund the war he is already determined to fight in exchange for defeat of a bill the church is opposed to.
3. The justification, or causus belli, put forth in great detail actually justifies Mortimer's claim to the throne better than Hal's. No mind. (And don't ask me to explain it; I am as confused by the scene as anyone! I am taking Goddard's word for it. I must say though that the whole staging reminded me of Colin Powell speaking to the UN in the run up to Iraq; it all sounds good even if, on examination, it would prove baseless.)
4. It would be interesting to see how an actor playing Henry would listen to the long speech of justification--with interest, comprehension,confused, bored. All he really wants is the Archbishop's blessing for what he intends to do. After the speech he says simply: "May I with right and conscience make this claim?"
5. Ely, Exeter and Westmoreland (at 1.2.115-130) give us more pragmatic justifications for the invasion, among them: a) in memory of others who've been slain, b) to live up to the family reputation, c) because you are a warrior, d) to establish your own reputation, d) other kings want you to do it, e) you have the "cause, means and might", [note that the word "cause" here means "wealth] f) the people will follow you.
6. Henry both allows Canterbury to discount the threat from Scotland and simultaneously send a smaller force than needed to France as a hedge against the Scots. (1.2.120-220)
7. In the tennis ball scene (which historically did not happen, lending credence to the satirical reading), I respect Adele's views about Henry's manner. Another way of reading the scene, is that he allows the French ambassador to get under his skin and make the dispute personal. Defense for this reading is the shift in pronoun (I.2.265-298) from the stately "we" when speaking of his wastral youth to the personal "I" when threatening France.
8. While the St Crispin's day speech (which is not really a speech but, rather, comments to his inner circle) is more famous, his exhortations at 3.1 are a better reflection of his understanding of what is needed in battle. What does it take to go "once more into the breech?" The metaphors are all animalistic: "Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide..." etc. I am not saying this is not the smart way to fire up the troops. Either win the town or "Fill up the wall with our English dead." When Falstaff said that one dead soldier is exchangeable with another, we were abashed. Is Hal's cavalier use of soldiers' lives really that different?
9. This speech is the first of two times Henry will suggest that fighting will ennoble the soldiers (even if only figuratively). He says, "There is none of you so mean and base/That hath not noble luster in your eyes." This is right before comparing them to greyhounds in the slip. I suggest the juxtaposition could be considered satirical. Excerpted and anthologized, the Crispin speech is rightly admired. But the rhetoric of all sides in warfare is comparable. No matter how poetic, it is not elevating; it is indoctrination.
10. Notwithstanding this and, at 4.3.63, the statement that fighting will "gentle their name," when the Herald reads the list of English dead it includes four titled slain and "none else of name." His promises are likely to be hollow.
[In fairness, historically, during the next campaign, Henry ordered that soldiers bearing coats of arms that had not been approved should be stripped of them, "except for those that bore arms with us at the Battle of Agincourt.]
11.Henry's prayer before the battle at Agincourt (IV.1.286 ff) is not a display of faith: It reflects guilt and bargaining with God. This undermines Henry's insistence after the battle (Non Nobis and Te Deum that God be praised.
12. His march from Harfleur to Calais is both strategically and tactically misconceived. It is Henry's fault that his army is debilitated by dysentery and good fortune --like the muddy field in which the mounted French bog down--rather than military skill that leads to victory at Agincourt.
13. In contrast to the earlier plays we do not get scenes of valiant soldiers, nor is Henry shown fighting in the five scenes devoted to the fight; he gets reports of the battle instead. (Not surprisingly, movie directors do not follow this faithfully.) Instead the soldiers we meet are either satirical (Fluellen) or comic (Pistol) or criminal (Nym, Bardolf).
14. The execution of the French prisoners may be justified tactically, but is still abhorrent morally.
15. As for his wooing of Katherine it may be "sudden infatuation" as Roger suggests, but it can also be seen as politically expedient. He wants to possess her as he possesses his conquest ("for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it; I will have it all mine..."). What he really needs from her is to be a good "soldier breeder" and bear him an heir who will solidify England's hold on France. Charming as his play acting the bumbling suitor may be, it is still play acting. Auden with hyperbole called it "the most brutal scene in Shakespeare," comparing it to Richard III's wooing of a woman whose husband he has just killed.
16. A final point against the national epic reading is that the play ends not with a myth making tone but with two comic scenes and a decidedly downbeat Epilogue. True, says the chorus, "Fortune made his sword/ By which the world's best garden he achieved." But the final image is a reminder of the catastrophes that will follow. Yes, we are reminded, this is a high water mark, but we are also reminded that plays already written (Henry VI, 1, 2 and 3 and Richard III) have showed the reality of what the Duke of Albany at the end of King Lear calls the "gored state." The last words of the Henriad undermine all the glory and leave us to ponder the truth that, like a theatrical performance itself, it is all an illusion.
If anyone has read this far, they may wonder why in this long laundry list of items, some big some trivial, I have not mentioned the scene where Henry disguises himself and encounters the soldiers Williams and Bates. Although I think the scene supports the reading above, including some satire, I also think it is a really important scene and should be discussed on its own merits. I wanted to leave it in case others wish to weigh in with their own interpretations.
Going back to my original post, the amazing thing about this play is that it supports alternative readings. I'd welcome hearing anyone else who wishes to pick apart my points, read the same speeches and incidents differently, or support the alternate case with further examples.
Oh, nicely done. I will think about.
Zeke wrote: "Going back to my original post, the amazing thing about this play is that it supports alternative readings. I'd welcome hearing anyone else who wishes to pick apart my points, read the same speeches and incidents differently, or support the alternate case with further examples. "I'm curious. Do you think Shakespeare intended this ambiguity, or do you think he intended the national hero reading, but wrote with enough complexity that the alternate reading is also possible?
E-man: I am not sure that "ambiguity" is the word I would choose. As I understand ambiguity, we are uncertain of what we are experiencing; is it this or is it that? In the rabbit-duck conception, the key point is that either rabbit or duck is clearly visible, but when seeing one or the other it is impossible to see the alternative.
I think that Shakespeare deeply wanted a well ordered world; one where hierarchy and "degree" are both observed and deserved. But he was far too keen an observer to believe this was possible. Leaders should be admirable, but they invariably fall short. Consider all of his rulers from not only the history plays but also the tragedies and comedies. Their ethical character is either constrained or corrupted by governance. Henry V is the sole example where one could make a persuasive case for a deserved pedestal though, as I tried to show, it is deeply undermined on close reading.
Here is the final paragraph and a half of Rabkin's essay. I think he says it better than I could.
The clash between the two possible views of the world of Henry V suggests a spiritual struggle in Shakespeare that he would spend the rest of his career working through. One sees a similar oscillation, magnified and reemphasized, in the problem plays and tragedies, and one is tempted to read the romances as a last profound effort to reconcile the irreconcilable. The terrible fact about Henry V is that Shakespeare seems equally tempted by both its rival gestalts. And he forces us, as we experience and reexperience and reflect on the play, as we encounter it in performances which inevitably lean in one direction or the other, to share his conflict.
Henry V is most valuable for us not because it points to a crisis in Shakespeare's spiritual life, but because it shows us something about ourselves: the simultaneity of our deepest hopes and fears about the world of political action. In this play, Shakespeare reveals the conflicts between the private selves with which we are born and the public selves we must become, between our longing that authority figures can be like us and our suspicion that they must have traded away their inwardness for the sake of power. The play contrasts our hope that society can solve our problems with our knowledge that society has never done so. The inscrutability of Henry V is the inscrutability of history. And for a unique moment in Shakespeare's work ambiguity is the heart of the matter, the single most important fact we must confront in plucking out the mystery of the world we live in.
I think that Shakespeare deeply wanted a well ordered world; one where hierarchy and "degree" are both observed and deserved. But he was far too keen an observer to believe this was possible. Leaders should be admirable, but they invariably fall short. Consider all of his rulers from not only the history plays but also the tragedies and comedies. Their ethical character is either constrained or corrupted by governance. Henry V is the sole example where one could make a persuasive case for a deserved pedestal though, as I tried to show, it is deeply undermined on close reading.
Here is the final paragraph and a half of Rabkin's essay. I think he says it better than I could.
The clash between the two possible views of the world of Henry V suggests a spiritual struggle in Shakespeare that he would spend the rest of his career working through. One sees a similar oscillation, magnified and reemphasized, in the problem plays and tragedies, and one is tempted to read the romances as a last profound effort to reconcile the irreconcilable. The terrible fact about Henry V is that Shakespeare seems equally tempted by both its rival gestalts. And he forces us, as we experience and reexperience and reflect on the play, as we encounter it in performances which inevitably lean in one direction or the other, to share his conflict.
Henry V is most valuable for us not because it points to a crisis in Shakespeare's spiritual life, but because it shows us something about ourselves: the simultaneity of our deepest hopes and fears about the world of political action. In this play, Shakespeare reveals the conflicts between the private selves with which we are born and the public selves we must become, between our longing that authority figures can be like us and our suspicion that they must have traded away their inwardness for the sake of power. The play contrasts our hope that society can solve our problems with our knowledge that society has never done so. The inscrutability of Henry V is the inscrutability of history. And for a unique moment in Shakespeare's work ambiguity is the heart of the matter, the single most important fact we must confront in plucking out the mystery of the world we live in.
@7. Yawza, Zeke. You put a lot of effort in. I will try to return your serve. Part 1 of 2.
(view spoiler)
(view spoiler)
Great exchange, Zeke and Adelle. I want to agree with both of you!
Everyman wrote: "Great exchange, Zeke and Adelle. I want to agree with both of you!"
RAbbit AND duck?... SO...Henry's a kind of turducken?
(Chicken in Duck in Turkey.) :-)
RAbbit AND duck?... SO...Henry's a kind of turducken?
(Chicken in Duck in Turkey.) :-)
Wow Adele! What a formidable return of serve @11 and 12.
If you are up for it, I invite you to make the first volley with your assessment of the scene where we get a "taste of Harry in the night" as he visits the troops on the eve of Agincourt. Whichever side you come down on (though I suspect it will fit your rabbit reading) I will attempt the counter.
I think it is a really important scene. And would welcome any one else who wants to weigh in.
Between us, and others, hopefully we are making good use of the case of tennis balls the French ambassador delivered!
If you are up for it, I invite you to make the first volley with your assessment of the scene where we get a "taste of Harry in the night" as he visits the troops on the eve of Agincourt. Whichever side you come down on (though I suspect it will fit your rabbit reading) I will attempt the counter.
I think it is a really important scene. And would welcome any one else who wants to weigh in.
Between us, and others, hopefully we are making good use of the case of tennis balls the French ambassador delivered!
Thanks, Zeke! I had fun. I will think on tonight... but if you are like a greyhound in a slip and go first, I'm ok with that, too.
Thank you for showing a girl a good time. ;-)
Thank you for showing a girl a good time. ;-)
Zeke, if you can give me one more day, please do. I read that scene this morning. Think I would like to address it...but need to think on it today. There are shadows on Henry.
Smiling....no problem Adele...I wasn't trying to put you on the spot....just interested to give you first crack at the exchange before the battle and what it might tell us about Henry....and about nations and wars.
Interesting that upon reflection the shadows upon Henry in the night are deepening for you.
Interesting that upon reflection the shadows upon Henry in the night are deepening for you.
Zeke.... I got lost. When I found my way, I found I was far from addressing your question.
I think that in wondering, I wandered outside the perimeters of your question. I started there with the “little touch of Harry in the night” scene. But, you know… No scene in anyone’s life can be understood without the prologue. And sorry, Zeke. I never made it truly made it back to analysis that scene.
(view spoiler)
(view spoiler)
I enjoyed Henry V very much (much more than either Henry IV), and part of what I liked about it was the ... (trying to find the right way to express it)... ambiguity? Not quite what I mean, but Henry seems to be presented as a Strong king, and that is good, but part of that strength is also brutality and manipulativeness, and that is shown as well. Definitely a play that can be presented in different ways, with Henry as more or less admirable, and with pro-war or anti-war elements emphasized. One detail that struck me when I read the play after watching the Hollow Crown (BBC) version was the way that in Act 4, Scene 7, line 151, Shakespeare has Henry set up Fluellen to receive Williams's boxing over the matter of the glove. In the movie they skip this and have Henry confront Williams himself, directly, without the subterfuge. I suppose that from Shakespeare's point of view, Fluellen's getting boxed is a nice comic bit of horseplay, but it does show Henry's devious side rather unpleasantly.
Anyway, the play was marvelous, and I've found the comments here to be very helpful, so ... thank you!
Good points Melora and I am glad you enjoyed the play. To follow on from your point, what do you think of Henry filling the glove that he challenged Williams with with money?
Is he, as King, filling it up as a sign of fellowship? Or is he, buying his way out of an honorable challenge by an equal (since Henry was disguised as a commoner)?
Williams says, "Your majesty came not as yourself..." Yet another reminder that the only thing that makes a king a king is "ceremony."
Is he, as King, filling it up as a sign of fellowship? Or is he, buying his way out of an honorable challenge by an equal (since Henry was disguised as a commoner)?
Williams says, "Your majesty came not as yourself..." Yet another reminder that the only thing that makes a king a king is "ceremony."
Thanks, Zeke. I guess the money in the glove comes off to me as a bit condescending, but since they are now back in their roles as king and commoner I don't think a fight would work. Henry seems to have a strong sense of the dignity of his position, and even though he may put that aside when He chooses (when he walks disguised among his soldiers, or when he consorts with drunks and thieves as Prince Hal), when he puts the crown back on he doesn't allow any attachments formed to compromise his high position. That "ceremony" may be just show, but it is crucial. So, no. Not fellowship. That business about being "brothers" (though perhaps that was only directed at his nobles anyway?) only goes so far!
Still, I do think Henry comes off Fairly well in the Williams affair. He is a bit of a weasel and he uses poor Fluellen badly, but he Does accept Williams's argument without demur and recognize its justice. His response there reminded me of what he said to the herald with the tennis balls, back in Act 1, Scene 2,...
"We are no tyrant but a Christian king,
Unto whose grace our passion is as subject
As are our wretches fettered in our prisons:
Therefore with frank and uncurbed plainness
Tell us the Dauphin's mind."
He Could get away with punishing Williams, but instead he openly acknowledges the justice of his complaint and recompenses him for his trauma!
Regarding "ambiguity" and Henry V, for me it is more a case of complexity, of things often not being black and white. When I think of "ambiguous," (and I also used that word in my earlier comments, because I think it does suit Some of what we see in Henry V, and because I couldn't find a more precise word for what I wanted to say), I think of something that is unclear or vague. Sometimes in character motivations and in things like exactly What Shakespeare is saying about something like "war" or "patriotism," I see ambiguity. At other times, though, it seems more a case of conflicting truths. I think Henry does genuinely care that his claim to France is legitimate, but I also think he very much wanted to get the answer he got and was willing to provide his advisers with a little incentive to give the right answer. He moans about the burdens of his position, where all he gets in return is ceremony, but then he triumphantly proclaims the advantages of that same position when he tells Kate "nice customs curtsy to great kings." He is by turns scheming and sincere, and so, very human. This sort of complexity of character is part of what I love about Shakespeare's plays!
The etymology of ambiguous is interesting.
Etymology: < Latin ambigu-us doubtful, driving hither and thither ( < ambig-ĕre, < amb- both ways + ag-ĕre to drive) + -ous suffix.
I get the sense of a word that is not only questionable in meaning, but also one that is leading me ("driving") in opposing directions.
Etymology: < Latin ambigu-us doubtful, driving hither and thither ( < ambig-ĕre, < amb- both ways + ag-ĕre to drive) + -ous suffix.
I get the sense of a word that is not only questionable in meaning, but also one that is leading me ("driving") in opposing directions.
I really enjoyed Henry V and all the comments on this string really made me look back at some sections. So Thanks! When I initially read the St. Crispin speech, although I had heard parts of it before, it reminded me of the speech in Gladiator that Russell Crowe makes to his troops before battle. It seems the speechwriter was taking Shakespeare's words/ideas as his own!
Henry did not regard Princess Katherine as property--he went through great lengths to woo her, to persuade her to accept him and the throne of England that was in his offer.
Roger wrote: "Henry did not regard Princess Katherine as property--he went through great lengths to woo her, to persuade her to accept him and the throne of England that was in his offer."No. But one suspects that her father did, being as he was the one to offer his 14 yo daughter up for marriage.
Ah, yes... yet... I read that when Henry finally met her he "became enamored of her."
Patrice wrote: "Interesting. F is not in Henry V. However, when Henry says in Act IV, Scene III, "But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive." who is he addressing if not F? We all l..."
I must speak up here and say that I didn't like/ as in "agree" ... with that speech on honour F gave. I thought S had F make that speech to show that FALSTAFF had no honor.
I must speak up here and say that I didn't like/ as in "agree" ... with that speech on honour F gave. I thought S had F make that speech to show that FALSTAFF had no honor.
Who would you rather have as your king? A man who seeks honor, like Henry? Or a man who regards it as an empty word, like Falstaff?
For me, the shadow of Falstaff's speech on honour cloaks all of Henry V. I know that others were critical of it, but I love the speech. As Adelle says, it demonstrates that F. has no honour; that's its point. He is scoffing at those who use honour as a justification for their own ends.
There is a small resonance of the speech for me in William's comments to Henry the night before the battle. In F.'s speech he says "honour has no skill in surgery." Williams makes a vivid description of a congregation of casualties: "...all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in battle shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'we died at such a place' [parody of St. Crispin's day speech]some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. i am afraid there are few die well that die in battle...
But Roger (@42) isn't that the paradox that Shakespeare invites us to ponder? Of course Falstaff can't be a king. But, darn it, he is more "honourable" in his disdain for honour than many a ruler.
There is a small resonance of the speech for me in William's comments to Henry the night before the battle. In F.'s speech he says "honour has no skill in surgery." Williams makes a vivid description of a congregation of casualties: "...all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in battle shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'we died at such a place' [parody of St. Crispin's day speech]some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. i am afraid there are few die well that die in battle...
But Roger (@42) isn't that the paradox that Shakespeare invites us to ponder? Of course Falstaff can't be a king. But, darn it, he is more "honourable" in his disdain for honour than many a ruler.
Roger wrote: "Who would you rather have as your king? A man who seeks honor, like Henry? Or a man who regards it as an empty word, like Falstaff?"It is easy to scoff at honor. As it is easy to scoff at nobility, courtesy, and yes, virtue. These are all subjective ideas with no inherent value other than whatever value we as humans put into them. But I think it would a bleak world if we abandoned them.
The critic A.D. Nuttall in Shakespeare the Thinker summarizes one side of our conversation nicely.
"Falstaff's skeptical nominalism is the real philosophical opposition to Henry's strangely ethical Realpolitik...The Prince is saying, ' I must involve thousands in bloodshed to prevent worse happening.' Falstaff is saying, 'I don't believe any of that; war is war, men die and all the grand language is shear illusion.' "
I like the sly oxymoron "strangely ethical realpolitik. I think it captures my sense of Henry perfectly.
"Falstaff's skeptical nominalism is the real philosophical opposition to Henry's strangely ethical Realpolitik...The Prince is saying, ' I must involve thousands in bloodshed to prevent worse happening.' Falstaff is saying, 'I don't believe any of that; war is war, men die and all the grand language is shear illusion.' "
I like the sly oxymoron "strangely ethical realpolitik. I think it captures my sense of Henry perfectly.
Sorry to just hit and run, I want to read the comments in this thread when I have a few extra minutes... for the moment, though, let me just drop in a link to my rather short and sketchy review.The main point I think might be worth discussion is that it seemed to me Shakespeare left the significant mystery of why the English won the battle of Agincourt (and sorry if this may have already been discussed in the thread). It seems three rival theses are supportable, and that the author intentionally refuses to give one clear interpretation, which is a nuance which can occur in the readers mind "offstage," but it is never directly addressed. The three theses, namely, are:
-God's will
-The triumph of men's characters
-Accident of fortune
And I noted that strategy and technology are not to be considered viable theses within the context of the play, even if historians might take an interest in such a topic.
Zadignose wrote: "Sorry to just hit and run, I want to read the comments in this thread when I have a few extra minutes... for the moment, though, let me just drop in a link to my rather short and sketchy review.T..."
There is, on Youtube, a video by the Battlefield Detectives concerning the battle, which offers the conclusion that it was really a matter of the nature of the battlefield and the principles and tactics of the opposing generals.
It was a good youtube video. Enjoyed it greatly. Learned somethings too. :-)
Adelle wrote: "I liked Henry V as an actual, viewable, play better than the other three in the Henriad as viewable plays. Yet I found that in reading, I engaged more deeply in the first three. But thought o..."
John Keegan's The Face of Battle has a very good chapter on Agincourt.
This is also a good book for people who want to know a lot about the battle. It definitely demythologizes Henry.
http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Henry...
http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Henry...
In Richard II we saw the story of two men, one going from the peak of the realm to death, the other from exile to the peak. In the three Henry plays, we see the same X structure, don't we? As one goes up, the other goes down.
We also find one of only two, that I'm aware of, uses of a chorus in Shakespeare, though the chorus here is much more active and integrated into the play than is the chorus in Romeo and Juliet, which (who?) has only the opening sonnet to offer. The chorus here speaks five prologues and an epilogue. Does this change the character of the play from the earlier plays in the Henriad, and if so how?
The whole nature of this play seems to me quite different from the three previous plays. Am I alone in thinking this?
We have two weeks to discuss Henry V and also to wrap up the full Henriad. So while Christmas Eve and Christmas may occupy much of your time the next few days (as it will mine), there will be plenty of opportunity to develop and explore our thoughts.