Some Much Needed Comic Relief

            While I ended up enjoying (and more importantly, understanding) Richard II by the end of Friday’s discussion, I have to say it wasn’t my favorite. I always have a hard time with history plays, as history (i.e.: names, dates, familial ties, etc.) is not my strong suit or my cup of tea. So when I saw that we were also reading 1 Henry IV, the sequel, I shuddered a little. But after reading Act 1.2, I am so happy to finally see comic relief, thanks to Prince Harry and Falstaff! Their friendship seems to be based on friendly mocking, silly banter, and sarcasm, which I found refreshing after the seriousness of Richard II.

            In the very start of the scene, Harry is already using his language to cleverly poking fun at Falstaff for being overweight by using expressions like “fat-witted” (2; drunk, or dumb) and “Come roundly, roundly” (19; get to the point). Falstaff fires back with, “[M]ajesty I should say, for grace though wilt have none […] not so much as will serve to be prologue to egg and butter” (14-18). In other words, he is implying that the prince doesn’t even have enough grace to bless a small snack with.

            I was most surprised by the amount of sexual innuendo in the Prince’s dialogue, particularly lines 27-34. While I noted the obvious “purse”/genitalia reference, as well as “snatched” and “lay by”, the Norton brought to my attention the other sexual references: “spent with,” “lie back” (duh!), and “low and high” referring to an erection. Whoa dude!

            My favorite moment – and probably the most nonsensical – of this conversation is this exchange:

FALSTAFF: By the Lord, thou sayest true, lad. And is not my hostess of the tavern a most sweet wench?
PRINCE HARRY: As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle. And is not a buff jerkin a most sweet robe of durance?
FALSTAFF: How now, how now, mad wag? What, in thy quips and thy quiddities? What a plague have I to do with a buff jerkin?
PRINCE HARRY: Why, what a pox have I to do with my hostess of the tavern?

            Here, Prince Harry is mocking Falstaff’s “stupid” question by retorting with an equally ridiculous question, about the durability of the sheriff’s uniform. I also love Prince Harry’s use of the expression “what the pox” to foil Falstaff’s “what a plague.” This is some classic male battle of the wits.

            As I was reading this scene, I had to remind myself that Harry/Hal is a prince. And here he is, hanging out with the likes of thieves and robbers, plotting practical jokes with a low-life of sorts. Huh? But instead of being horrified or shocked, I actually found it humbling to see a prince actually enjoying himself, being funny.

            After we enjoy several pages of sexual puns and sarcasm a la Shakespeare, the humor dies down as we learn Prince Harry’s true motives: “Yet herein will I imitate the sun,/Who doth permit the base contagious clouds/To smother up his beauty from the world,/That, when he please again to be himself,/Being wanted, he may be more wondered at/By breaking through the foul and ugly mist/Of vapors that did seem to strangle him” (175-181). Basically, Prince Harry reveals in the monologue that he is only hanging out with this sordid bunch so that when he reveals his true character, everyone will be that much more impressed with him; he will appear more desirable to be king.

            I know that some may interpret Prince Harry as using Falstaff to his advantage, and – who knows? – maybe by the end as this all unfolds that will prove true. But for now I actually sympathize with him; he is acting as many sons/daughters act to gain their parents’ approval, to feel the need to prove themselves. Sure, this may be a dirty way to do it, seeing how much Falstaff respects him. But I don’t know, I don’t see it as so horrendous.

Henry? Is That You?

Before I begin, I just have to say that I've always been a fan of Kenneth Branagh and I look forward to really diving into his interpretation of Henry V (the character, mostly). I've always said that Shakespeare has reincarnated himself into three people of the twentieth century: Branagh, Laurence Olivier, and Orson Welles (that last one may be controversial). It's one thing to play Hamlet for a little while on stage or in a movie, but these men seemingly lived and breathed Shakespeare. Honestly, I love Branagh and am excited to see the film (I've only ever seen the St. Crispin's Day speech, which was gorgeous by itself). Now, onto the blogging.

I was rather shocked by this Harry when comparing him to the Prince Hal we came to know and love in 1 Henry IV. The speeches he gives are just gorgeous (did I say that already?), particularly the one he gives after fooling the soldiers and is left alone in IV.1 (which I saw as VERY reminiscent of, ironically, Richard II's speech when he was imprisoned in the castle) and, of course, the St. Crispin's Speech in IV.3. As I read these speeches (and felt an overwhelming sense of English pride, despite myself being both English and obviously French), I couldn't help but lose track of the character. Is this what a perfect redemption looks like? Was Harry really such a lovely and eloquent person underneath all of that debauchery? Is it even possible to make such a one-eighty and be the same person? I honestly find it hard to believe that this is the same Hal. I understand he's older and now he has quite a bit of responsibility on his hands, but it seems to me that Shakespeare has either overinflated the virtue of Harry as King, or exaggerated his vices as Prince. Then again, this could be all apart of Shakespeare's plan to show the "like father, like son" aspect of the Henrys. This shining individual that Harry has become shows his near-perfect acting ability he inherited from his father, who was also presented as a near-perfect individual. Henry IV's kindness towards peasants and support from the people disgusted Richard II, who, until his death, saw royalty as far above the common swill that was a subject. Harry, too gained support from the people by living with them in the taverns, while at the same time building up a rather sour reputation so he could prove himself by renouncing the tavern life upon becoming king. This way, Harry gains the support of the people as king tenfold when compared to his father. He even goes so far as to banish Falstaff, who dies of a broken heart. It's this conniving nature that runs through the Henrys, seen first in the father's outward desire to cleanse the land and help and love the people, then seen in the son's outward fall from grace and rise to redemption. Once again, the Henrys rely on their subjects being very stupid and it works for them.

Another part of this play that had me thrown off was the final scene between Harry and Catherine. Since when was this a love story? The whole scene felt like an afterthought. I will admit that Catherine's English lessons provided some foreshadowing, but it still seemed like a very strange scene to end the play with. Once again, here's Harry as the suave, pure man, sweeping Catherine off her feet. It's one of those moments when the character could just jump off the page and yell, "I'm acting!" but Harry's too good at what he does for that. This scene seems to be symbolic of unity of the two countries, expressed through the purity of love and marriage, but it almost creeps up on you at the end, especially since it comes after a rather ridiculous scene depicting three morons arguing over leeks (and the unfortunate death of Pistol's wife through syphilis, which is still a rather unsavory sentiment).

Of course, one must not overlook the humorous undertones of this scene. This reminds me of the scene between Mortimer and his wife in 1 Henry IV, in which neither one could understand the other. That scene was meant to show the foolishness of the rebels, but now this scene at the end of Henry V is very much in conflict with itself: Harry is pure, suave, and uniting the countries, but he's also trying to sweet-talk a woman that barely understands him. Was this scene purely meant for laughs so the play could end one a happy tone? Well, the epilogue certainly kills the mood with its foreboding message of the loss of a kingdom. Perhaps this comedic scene depiction of a language barrier is foreshadowing to Henry VI's loss of France: England and France cannot be together because they will never understand each other. Quite eloquent, if you ask me.

"If we are marked to die, we are enough to do our country loss; and if we live, the fewer men, the greater share of honor." -Henry V

-Sarah Bras

Henry, the Prince of Thieves

When I began reading I Henry IV, I found it slightly ironic that King Henry was in the east fighting in a Holy war while Prince Harry was back at home hanging out with less than reputable men. As king, he and those that are to be his heirs should be very moral. When you consider how he became king in the last play, this isn’t as surprising. In fact, one of the first thing Falstaff says about himself is he’s a thief, though he dresses up the fact in 1.2.20-26. I got the sense that Prince Harry is one as well based on the next two lines: “for the/ fortune of us that are the moon’s men...” The fact that the king’s son admits to, or at least openly associates with, theft seems to amplify the fact that the crown was, bluntly, stolen in the past. At this point, my guess is the royal line will either be hurt or shamed sometime down the line as a result of the prince’s friends in this part of society.

In Act 2, I really wonder if Prince Harry is thinking about the future at all. Sure, Falstaff calls attention to his title quite often, with possibly more of a familiar air than a respectful one, but is he really considering how his actions will be perceived down the line? Scene 2 he, Falstaff and Poins basically let innocent travelers get robbed and then steal from the thieves in the following scene. The only explanation I can think of is he has been doing this for a very long time, maybe too long to quit easily. It’s not as if he needs to anymore. HE’S ROYALTY. I don’t think the financial situation in England is so bad that he has no other choice.

He treats his actions as if they can be so easily fixed that none of his current deeds will matter Act 1 scene 2 from line 173 on. Again we see the analogy of the king being like the sun in this passage. In lines 175 through 181 he claims that he can simply rise above any immorality around him like a warm sun dissipating the clouds around it. Again, the line in the next act about him being one of the moon’s men comes to mind to clash with this plan. This is similar to the plan in Measure for Measure by the Duke, except for one, ‘minor’ detail: The Duke made someone else the bad guy so he could look good in comparison. I would really like to see what triumphant deed Prince Harry can do to make everyone think he’s so great, assuming he gets the chance.

Prince Harry

Prince Harry is quite the interesting character. While his father, King Henry IV, thinks ill of him and even wishes Hotspur to be his son instead of Harry, the reader learns at the end of Act 1 Scene 2 that this is all a part of Harry’s plan.

Harry associates himself with the ruffians of London, the highwaymen and thieves playing along with their antics and gaining a bad reputation for himself – one his father greatly disapproves of, but Harry sees it differently. According to Harry, if he has a bad reputation beforehand then when it is his time to shine his drastic change will stun everyone and make him seem even better than he is. He states, “my reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,/ shall show more goodly and attract more eyes / than that which hath no foil to set if off” (lines 191-3) which means that when he reveals himself to be a great person/leader everyone would be so amazed at his turn around that they would appreciate him more than if he performed these same tactics as an ordinary, upstanding man from the beginning. Like the idea, also mentioned in his speech, that if there are always holidays, having fun would become tedious because it’s all you do. I find this both very intelligent and interesting. While this is a great idea, it makes me wonder about politics. When we elect a president, I feel like we look at EVERYTHING that person has done throughout their life and condemn them for the bad, but here, Harry would be rewarded for getting passed his bad side. Perhaps that’s because the people have no choice or electing vote?

It’s also amusing how King Henry IV mentions preferring Hotspur because he is the more upstanding man when he is the one plotting; meanwhile his son is pretending to be a lowlife while plotting on how to make a better leader.

I also wonder if Harry is Henry V or not. I recall watching the film with Kenneth Branagh and thinking that Henry V is this great guy and leader (though it was so long ago I can’t remember if that’s true) and comparing him to Harry seems rather unlikely because of his deceiving plans, but does that make him really smart or sneaky? Maybe because I couldn’t see the character I watched doing something as vile as hanging around highwaymen, but I could be wrong! I’m interested to see where that goes.

There are many characters in this play but I feel as if Prince Harry’s role takes on many aspects of it. He is both smart and fun (so far). When his highwaymen friends set up the theft that they want Harry to join in, he is at first hesitant but when one of them turns it into a game against each other, he decides to join. It is as if he knows just how far he can go and what he can get away with.