Like father, like son: Prince Harry is quite the politician. Unlike Hotspur, whose bravery in plotting the king's overthrow stems from his compassion for his brother-in-law Mortimer and the responsibility of kinship, Hal manufactures the illusion of greatness by way of negative example. As his concluding speech in 1.2 explains, he only consorts with Falstaff and company in neglect of his princely duties so that, when his father and the court have nearly lost all faith in him, he can wow them by actually meeting a few of their expectations. In a sense, he is doing exactly what Bolingbroke does in Richard II when he does favor's for common-folk upon exile: he is "falsify[ing] men's hopes" (1.2.189), manipulating their emotions for his own political ends. It is understandable, if only slightly hypocritical, that King Henry would regard Hal as an embarrassment.
At first, I thought that Hal's dismissal of the "unyoked humour" of the thieves' "idleness" (1.2.174) was meant only toward's Falstaff's plan to rob the pilgrims and that his and Pons' plot to rob the robbers was going to serve as Hal's astonishing "reformation." But, upon re-reading, it seems Hal is dismissing Pons as petty as well. Why did Prince Harry ever begin wasting his time with these people? Where is his self-respect?
Perhaps Shakespeare attempts to answer some of these questions in the quasi-play-within-a-play scene at the end of 2.5. After discussing the robbery, Falstaff brings Hal news of the Welsh conflict and asks him, "art not thou horrible afeard?"--is he not afraid to face his father's foes? Moreover, is he not afraid to face his father after such a prolonged absence? The two then take turns playing Hal and the king to "practise an answer" to King Henry's anticipated inquisition. Here again Hal is practicing deceit, but it is Falstaff who suggests the exercise. Unsurprisingly, their mock interviews deal with the question of Falstaff's moral fortitude more than Hal's. It seems both understand that King Henry will be more willing to blame his son's irresponsible behavior on "that villainous, abominable misleader of youth, Falstaff" (2.5.421) than to associate it with Hal, his blood, and by proxy, himself.
It is interesting that "misleader of youth" recalls an epithet once used to describe Socrates, corrupter of youth, especially in a scene that somewhat mimics Socratic dialogue. Is Shakespeare drawing a comparison here? Will Falstaff's idle amusements in any way teach young Hal something about one day being king? Is he teaching Hal how to be a politician by encouraging duplicity? It certainly seems so, because at the end of 2.5, it Hal's plan is to turn Falstaff over to the sheriff and then go to war on behalf of the crown. Perhaps betraying Falstaff is his reformation. Ironic, no? I'm interested to see what will become of ol' Prince Hal in these wars. Will he prove a coward, or will we see a warrior's wisdom shine through those metaphorical clouds?
1 comment:
Great attention here, Nicole, to Hal...particularly the scene in which he and Falstaff take turns playing king with one another. Prince Hal's deceit is one of his defining characteristics, and even in this scene (and really throughout) don't we get the sense he would sell out any of his companions for his own gain?
Post a Comment