At the beginning of
Henry IV, Part I, Henry V is viewed by the king, and presumably others, as full
of "riot and dishonor," so despised by his father that he wishes the
rebel Thomas Percy was his son (Henry IV, Part 1 I. i.83-89). His father thinks
the prince is revenge from God for some past wrong he has done and
even believes he's capable of treason. He has been replaced by his brother in
his official duties and appears little at court (Henry IV, Part 1 III. ii ). At
this point, it seems not just that Henry will be a bad king
but will not become king at all.
However, in Henry V's first soliloquy, in Act I, which is
a prophecy in the play and a historical fact of the past
for us, we are told what will inevitably happen:
So when this loose
behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And, like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt'ring o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend to make offense a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I
will.
(Henry IV, Part 1 I.ii.212-221)
This sets up a dramatic
irony for anybody who knows the biography of Henry V, which Shakespeare's
audience certainly would have, and this irony is there from the first act of
Henry IV, Part 1 through the final act of Henry IV Part 2, with its perhaps
overly cruel rejection of Falstaff. We know that Henry V will emerge
as a noble leader but are still fascinated about how this
transformation will occur.
I would like to argue here something I think is an important point but which
has not been emphasized in any of the commentaries I've read.
Henry's seemingly dissolute life in the first two plays is not
completely wasted, but rather Henry V learns a great deal from that time that
benefits him as a leader in the final play.
In the first act of the first play, Henry V paraphrases Proverbs: ". . .
for wisdom cries out in the streets, and no man regards it."
(Henry IV, Part 1 I.ii. 92-93). Henry does regard it. He spends a
lot of time with what we would call today "the average man or woman on the
street." He spends time with low-ranked soldiers, bar-keepers,
waiters, ostlers, servants, prostitutes, barflies, porters, and beat cops.
Henry V does pull rank with this group on several occasions, but he has a
remarkably egalitarian attitude for someone raised to rule at the top of a
strictly hierarchical political system. There are often complaints that leaders
are out of touch with the average person. This cannot be said of Henry V, and a
wide acquaintance with different types of citizens causes a broad view and
empathy and sympathy with a variety of people.
Spending time with common soldiers has an obvious advantage, and although today
in the United States, every general started as a lower-ranked officer, it would
have been very unusual at the time for a member of the nobility to mix so much
with commoners. He would have learned how the average soldiers thought,
understood their motivations, the importance of the morale of the
common soldier, and these realizations inform the St. Crispin's day speech,
where he successfully reduces the fear of the troops. In the night before the
battle of Agincourt, as the French nobles talk amongst themselves, Henry V
walks among his troops, "visits all his host, bids them good morrow with a
modest smile and calls them brothers, friends, and countrymen."
(Henry V, IV. Chorus. 32-34). The affectionately competitive teasing and
insults he engages in with Falstaff and his other drinking companions sharpens
his wit and teaches him how to use language, important traits in a leader.
The friendly prank he plays on Falstaff with the robbery, in which he entraps
him in order to catch him in his lies, echoes the clever – and darkly
witty – entrapment of the conspirators in Act II, Scene I of Henry
V. His friendly exchanges of insults with his friends prepare
him for real enemies. We see the advantage of this early in the third
play. When confronted with the serious mocking of the Dauphin, he is able
to respond with a fearsome wit (Henry V, I.ii.).
There is a least one character in the play who seems to fully appreciate this
learning of language from his useful companions, the Earl of Warwick:
The prince but studies
his companions
Like a strange tongue, wherein, to gain the language
'Tis needful that the most immodest word
Be looked upon and learned, which once attained,
Your Highness knows, comes to no further use
But to be known and hated.
Warwick is
correct. Henry V, in the final play, uses lofty and inspiring language,
which is heard most strikingly in the "Once more into the breach, dear
friends " speech in Act III, scene I, and in the St. Crispin's Day speech
in Act IV of Henry V. This is a strong contrast to the sometimes bawdy
exchanges between friends like Falstaff and Poins in Henry IV's parts 1 and 2.
No discussion about Henry's extraordinary gift for language and abilities as
a leader can be complete without an analysis of these
speeches. In the St. Crispin's Day speech (Henry V, Part 1. IV. I. ii.
18-67 ), expressing more optimism than he personally feels, he starts by making
a virtue out of the bad situation. The English are outnumbered, but that
just means that each soldier will have a greater share of honor as if
honor was something tangible and limited they will physically possess.
Henry is "not covetous for gold" - and although capturing additional
territory would result in more revenue, such as taxes – he states here that he
is acting from the much purer motive of honor.
Henry V then makes a striking offer. Any soldier who wants to leave can
do so, and money will be given for his departure. This may not
be a sincere offer, but it would motivate in several ways. Since fighting
requires the trust of others fighting with you, the fact that no one has, in
effect, retreated before the battle would increase the trust that no other
soldier in the army will retreat once the battle has begun. An army
consisting of individuals fighting from their own free will, rather than on
compulsion, would also have higher morale. The offer would also shame
soldiers thinking about retreating.
He also gives soldiers a longer view by talking about the historic nature of
the battle. No matter what happens in the battle, it will be
remembered forever, passed down from son to son, and so far, this is true.
He also makes the soldiers think about the longer view within their own
lifetimes. They will be able to celebrate this date over and over again,
every year, for the rest of their lives, and will be admired by their
neighbors. Wounds in this fight are then to be desired since they can
be used to prove that the soldier was actually at this battle.
Their individual names will be remembered. To emphasize this, Henry V calls out
names, including Talbot, who has not previously been mentioned in
this play and who may be
a lower-ranking soldier.
Soldiers, no matter what their class, will increase their rank by
participating. They will all – although not literally - become ennobled
and all become gentlemen. In fact, they will be nobler than the gentlemen that
have stayed home who now must "hold their manhoods cheap." They
will even approach the nobility of Henry V, "for he today that sheds his
blood with [him] shall be [his] brother." His egalitarian nature, as
discussed earlier in this essay, gives this remarkable claim some credibility.
Henry V uses also uses rhetoric about nobility and honor at the battle of
Harfleur (Henry V, III. I 1-34):
. . . Let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not,
For there is none of you so mean and base
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
and refers to them as
"you noble English." He makes them think of their fathers,
who war-like, Alexander-like, fought in this same area and tells them to
"dishonor not your mothers."
In Henry's speech, the soldiers are transformed into a terrifying, raging,
almost supernatural power. Each of them becomes as powerful as a brass cannon,
as fast as a greyhound, as fierce as a tiger, and as overwhelming as a
"wild and wasteful ocean," with the enemy becoming base
men fit only to be taught a lesson in warfare.
Henry V is often successful in balancing justice and mercy, an admirable trait
in a leader. Henry is not as absolutist a king that he has - by law and
tradition - a right to be. Before sentencing the three traitors to death, he
pardons a soldier, who, while drunk, insults Henry (Henry V, II.
ii). Michael Williams, who insults King Henry and challenges him to a
duel when Henry is in disguise, would have been killed by many a monarch. Henry
V instead treats it almost as a comic prank (Henry V, IV. vii-viii),
another echo we have in the final play of his younger days. Had he executed
these soldiers or severely punished them, it would have been accepted by the
people of England and not have surprised anybody but his close
friends. These two incidents show justice and mercy combined.
It would not have been just to severely punish someone who was out of his mind
with alcohol for mere verbal insults, and in the case of Michael Williams,
Henry V did, after all, encourage him to speak frankly about feelings towards
him and the battle.
There is, however, a dramatic collision between justice and mercy in the case
of the execution of Bardolf, a scene painful for the reader who has come to
have some affection for the character. We that admire Henry V
find ourselves hoping that it is painful for him, too, but there is
no indication of this in the scene when he reacts to the report of Fluellen:
We should have all such
offenders cut off. And
we give express charge that in our marches through the
country there be nothing compelled from the villages,
nothing taken but paid for; none of the French up-
braided or abused in disdainful language; for when
lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler
gamester is the soonest winner (Henry V. III. vi. 103-109).
However, there is a more positive interpretation that I lean towards. Henry is put into a position where he is almost forced to execute Bardolf. The Duke of Exeter has already, under Henry's orders, arrested and sentenced Bardolf. Henry cannot stop the execution without overturning his own command and during a public situation at that. To do so would have a very negative effect on troop discipline. Also, Henry's disguised visit to Pistol in Act IV. I. before the battle of Agincourt, where he says he's "a friend" when questioned by Pistol, shows that Bardolf and his former companions are very much on his mind.
It also can be argued convincingly that the execution is a just act. Commands must be applied uniformly to be just, and Bardolf has endangered the entire army by provoking the civilian population of France. There is then a utilitarian argument to be made for the justice of the act. The death of Bardolf will result in fewer deaths for the rest of the English army, and the increased military discipline will reduce the suffering of French civilians. The concern for French villagers may, therefore, be real, as well as being a good tactical strategy (Henry V. III. vi. 103-109).
However, if the successful leadership of Henry V is to be judged by his competence as a military commander, with either of the above interpretations - the act of execution as an exercise in a cold calculation or as a necessary act of justice done with personal regret – the end result is the same. Army discipline will be increased, and the successful conquering of France will be made more likely.
The three plays discussed here can be viewed as a complete whole, and the evolution of the complex personality of Henry V from a dissolute youth to a great leader is psychologically plausible. Most critics seem to agree with the attitude of the characters of Henry IV and others that Henry V's youth has been wasted. Here, I hope to have explained that valuable lessons can be learned from such a life and not just of the cautionary - example type. Many readers feel that Henry V admirably balances justice and mercy, even if with must view the slaughtering of the prisoners at Agincourt and his terrifying threats at Harfleur as aberrations in character done under extreme stress. In the end, though, we want the English to win these battles fought so many hundreds of years ago, and this is a testament to Henry V's remarkable charism.
