Post by shaxper on Apr 8, 2002 0:23:20 GMT -5
Anyone who listens to my babblings long enough will soon realize that my favorite Shakespeare plays to discuss are the Histories. I was just thinking about the Second Henriad again tonight (Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, Henry V), and I came back to the age old debate about the tones of these plays.
On the surface, this is Shaky's final set of English Histories; the first set having been a bloody mess of evil and cruelty, while the second set begins with the crooked Richard II and ends with the glorious campaign of Henry V.
But this is a bit like watching the new Star Wars prequels. The second Henriad came first, historically, and just as we know that no matter what good Anakin Skywalker does he will ultimately become Darth Vadar, we know that whatever good Henry V does, his reign will still be succeeded by Henry VI and later Richard III.
Furthermore, there are the issues of the kings' characters in each play. Richard II starts off as a crooked, self-serving wimp, while Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) stands with the neglected and abused people of the nation. But as the play turns, we begin to catch Bolingbroke in his lies, even promising monetary rewards to those who follow him when he criticized Richard for being too money-oriented. Finally, at the end, we find Henry ordering Exton to murder Richard, but then washing the blame off on Exton, who he exiles for his loyalty, just as at the start of the play, Richard exiled Mowbray for following his orders in killing Gloucester. Evil has replaced evil.
By the time we get to Henry V, Henry seems to be the more honorable king, going so far as to beg God's forgiveness for the crime his father committed against Richard, and exuding honor in general, but there are moments that hint at something more mischievious beneath the surface, most obviously in the final scene, in which Henry has now conquered France, demands the king disinherit his son, and then claims he is hopelessly in love with the king's final remaining legal heir, even though he has never met her before. Catherine plainly objects to his love (though her objections are often played off as coyness) but Henry keeps pushing, reminding the King that his daughter's hand is Henry's chief demand.
When, for example, Henry says "Shall not thou and I...compound a boy...Shall we not? What sayst thou, my fair flower de-luce?" (V.ii.204-8) he seems to be repeating his question urgently in response to a reluctance on her part. When Catherine finally responds with "I do not know dat" she says so because she can't simply say no, but will not say yes. Henry all but ignores her, responding with "No, 'tis hereafter to know, but now to promise" like someone giving an actor their cue, for Henry is certainly playing a role. He is trying to look like the good guy, as he has attempted to do all along, and marrying Catherine allows him to rule France without looking like a tyrant conquerer, which is exactly what he is. After all, at the begining of this play, did we not see that Canterbury has "made an offer to his majesty...As touching France, to give a greater sum Than ever at one time the clergy yet Did to his predecessors part withal?" Basically, an agreement was made before the great scene in which he claims to deliberate the pros and cons of going to war, in which he would conquer France, yield land and profit to the clergy, and they in response, would give "a greater sum" (more money and or support) than they ever have given to a king before him. We are informed from the start that Henry's long musings in 1.2 are staged. His decision is already made. And when, after Canterbury has given his long explanation for why England is just in going to war with France, Henry coaxes "May I with right and conscience make this claim?" he is legally setting the record straight, writing this off on Canterbury's head instead of his own. He is ever the calculating politician in the first and last acts of the play, and makes us wonder how much of the rest of the play is any more genuine.
Of course, these are my opinions and readings, and critics have debated this issue for the last hundred years, so there are obviously other legitamite readings. Any opinions out there?
On the surface, this is Shaky's final set of English Histories; the first set having been a bloody mess of evil and cruelty, while the second set begins with the crooked Richard II and ends with the glorious campaign of Henry V.
But this is a bit like watching the new Star Wars prequels. The second Henriad came first, historically, and just as we know that no matter what good Anakin Skywalker does he will ultimately become Darth Vadar, we know that whatever good Henry V does, his reign will still be succeeded by Henry VI and later Richard III.
Furthermore, there are the issues of the kings' characters in each play. Richard II starts off as a crooked, self-serving wimp, while Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) stands with the neglected and abused people of the nation. But as the play turns, we begin to catch Bolingbroke in his lies, even promising monetary rewards to those who follow him when he criticized Richard for being too money-oriented. Finally, at the end, we find Henry ordering Exton to murder Richard, but then washing the blame off on Exton, who he exiles for his loyalty, just as at the start of the play, Richard exiled Mowbray for following his orders in killing Gloucester. Evil has replaced evil.
By the time we get to Henry V, Henry seems to be the more honorable king, going so far as to beg God's forgiveness for the crime his father committed against Richard, and exuding honor in general, but there are moments that hint at something more mischievious beneath the surface, most obviously in the final scene, in which Henry has now conquered France, demands the king disinherit his son, and then claims he is hopelessly in love with the king's final remaining legal heir, even though he has never met her before. Catherine plainly objects to his love (though her objections are often played off as coyness) but Henry keeps pushing, reminding the King that his daughter's hand is Henry's chief demand.
When, for example, Henry says "Shall not thou and I...compound a boy...Shall we not? What sayst thou, my fair flower de-luce?" (V.ii.204-8) he seems to be repeating his question urgently in response to a reluctance on her part. When Catherine finally responds with "I do not know dat" she says so because she can't simply say no, but will not say yes. Henry all but ignores her, responding with "No, 'tis hereafter to know, but now to promise" like someone giving an actor their cue, for Henry is certainly playing a role. He is trying to look like the good guy, as he has attempted to do all along, and marrying Catherine allows him to rule France without looking like a tyrant conquerer, which is exactly what he is. After all, at the begining of this play, did we not see that Canterbury has "made an offer to his majesty...As touching France, to give a greater sum Than ever at one time the clergy yet Did to his predecessors part withal?" Basically, an agreement was made before the great scene in which he claims to deliberate the pros and cons of going to war, in which he would conquer France, yield land and profit to the clergy, and they in response, would give "a greater sum" (more money and or support) than they ever have given to a king before him. We are informed from the start that Henry's long musings in 1.2 are staged. His decision is already made. And when, after Canterbury has given his long explanation for why England is just in going to war with France, Henry coaxes "May I with right and conscience make this claim?" he is legally setting the record straight, writing this off on Canterbury's head instead of his own. He is ever the calculating politician in the first and last acts of the play, and makes us wonder how much of the rest of the play is any more genuine.
Of course, these are my opinions and readings, and critics have debated this issue for the last hundred years, so there are obviously other legitamite readings. Any opinions out there?
