Post by shaxper on Oct 19, 2002 19:27:28 GMT -5
I often wonder, when faced with WS's eloquently spoken politicians (namely Henry Bolingbroke, Henry V, and Claudius), who are constantly playing games of spin and pretend, whether or not they are lying to themselves, as well. We're given so few glimpses into their true nature (outside of Henry V and Claudius both praying), that I wonder whether they would be capable of pulling off these elaborate facades without convincing themselves, as well.
Does Claudius truly understand which Dane is the foul disease? He seems to when he prays, but I still choose to read further into his character. Doesn't it surprise anyone else that Claudius takes so long to react to The Mousetrap? A cunning, calculating ruler would have been keeping his eyes open for such an act of opposition and would have ended it sooner, preventing Hamlet's message from being conveyed to the rest of the audience. Moreover, Claudius's response was the most incriminating part of the entire play. His response doesn't seem to have been consistant with the character we generally take him to be. I think he's struggling to convince himself, along with Gertrude and the court, and that's why his reaction is late, sudden, and sloppy.
I wonder the same thing about good old King Hal. He's constantly concerned with shifting blame off of himself in Henry V, convincing others that he is not responsible with the outcome of his war against France (which may or may not have been fueled by personal needs). He says this to the Archbishop numerous times, leaving no room for doubt that responsibility, should this war be unjust, is on the archbishop's head; not his.
When speaking to the governer at Harfleur, Henry again takes all responsibility from himself, claiming that if the governer does not surrender, he will have no control over his men, who will ravage the town. Certainly, it isn' the king's idea. After all, he is "the friend of France". He can't possibly be blamed.
The same issue comes up when he infiltrates the ranks of his men as Henry Le Roy. Responsibility for this war, and for each man serving under him, resides in each man, not the king. The King proclaims the war and sends his men to battle, but assumes no responsibility for either the war or the men.
Henry becomes so driven with taking blame and criticism away from himself that it even comes up when he prays to God. He very carefully places the wrongs done to Richard II on his father, distancing himself from his own Lancastrian line and proclaiming himself some heir and avenger of Richard's throne.
Of course, we have no insight whatsover to Bolingbroke's thoughts in Richard II. We only see him performing.
So, whether or not you agree with the actions of any or all of these characters, if you agree that they do put on facades and are highly image-minded, do you feel that this carries into their personal selves, as well, or are they merely playing a role (or set of roles) particularly well?
Does Claudius truly understand which Dane is the foul disease? He seems to when he prays, but I still choose to read further into his character. Doesn't it surprise anyone else that Claudius takes so long to react to The Mousetrap? A cunning, calculating ruler would have been keeping his eyes open for such an act of opposition and would have ended it sooner, preventing Hamlet's message from being conveyed to the rest of the audience. Moreover, Claudius's response was the most incriminating part of the entire play. His response doesn't seem to have been consistant with the character we generally take him to be. I think he's struggling to convince himself, along with Gertrude and the court, and that's why his reaction is late, sudden, and sloppy.
I wonder the same thing about good old King Hal. He's constantly concerned with shifting blame off of himself in Henry V, convincing others that he is not responsible with the outcome of his war against France (which may or may not have been fueled by personal needs). He says this to the Archbishop numerous times, leaving no room for doubt that responsibility, should this war be unjust, is on the archbishop's head; not his.
When speaking to the governer at Harfleur, Henry again takes all responsibility from himself, claiming that if the governer does not surrender, he will have no control over his men, who will ravage the town. Certainly, it isn' the king's idea. After all, he is "the friend of France". He can't possibly be blamed.
The same issue comes up when he infiltrates the ranks of his men as Henry Le Roy. Responsibility for this war, and for each man serving under him, resides in each man, not the king. The King proclaims the war and sends his men to battle, but assumes no responsibility for either the war or the men.
Henry becomes so driven with taking blame and criticism away from himself that it even comes up when he prays to God. He very carefully places the wrongs done to Richard II on his father, distancing himself from his own Lancastrian line and proclaiming himself some heir and avenger of Richard's throne.
Of course, we have no insight whatsover to Bolingbroke's thoughts in Richard II. We only see him performing.
So, whether or not you agree with the actions of any or all of these characters, if you agree that they do put on facades and are highly image-minded, do you feel that this carries into their personal selves, as well, or are they merely playing a role (or set of roles) particularly well?
