|
|
4/8/00: Shakespeare Midterm
1A. Compare Richard and Hal.
In many ways, the similarities between Richard and Hal are based mostly on Henry IV's perception, rather than actual evidence in the various plays. In fact, Saccio points out that Shakespeare exaggerates Hal's characterization as a "madcap prince." Most of King Henry's perceptions are based on the fear that Hal won't live up to the family name, or go into the family business. Both Hal and Richard are portrayed as arrogant and above the law. In Richard's case, this is in the context of politics, and in Hal's it is in Mrs. Quickley's inn. Neither appear to aspire to justice and peace in the way that King Henry does--self-interest appears to be the main motivation of Hal and Richard.
In many ways, King Henry feels punished by both Hal and Richard, albeit for different reasons. King Henry believes Hal blames him for the way he attained the thrown, and he confesses that Hal's actions, "make me believe that thou art marked for the hot vengeance and the rod of heaven to punish my mistreadings." King Henry's own guilt appears to motivate him, while Hal and Richard appear to be more carefree.
King Henry also believes that Hal and Richard have behaved immorally. Their private conduct of drunken companionship is distasteful to King Henry. For instance, King Henry chastises Hal by saying, "For now a time is come to mock at form--- Henry the fifth is crowned. Up vanity! Down royal state." King Henry fears that his ridding England of Richard was pointless if his faults are reincarnated in Hal.
However, I think King Henry is partly motivated by guilt and jealously regarding his own usurping of the crown. The main historical similarly between Richard and Hal is that they both inherited the crown, unlike King Henry. In a sense, King Henry is not really the "true" king, but a political rebel. Richard and Hal have a claim to the throne which is by birthright, rather than by choice. Neither can see the full implication of their powers because they have never lived any other way. King Henry does not take his rule for granted--he knows how fleeting it can be--and is alarmed by the carelessness of his son and his predecessor.
I think in comparing Richard and Hal, we must take into account King Henry's own bias. The claim that both Richard and Hal are unfit rulers is one that King Henry makes, and is not necessarily black and white in the actions of the two. It is interesting that our perceptions of Richard and Hal are colored by King Henry's own beliefs, and it makes Hal's transition into a good king even more interesting.
2B. Trace garden motif. 8/2 refs.
The garden motif begins in Richard II, in the characterization of the England's royalty as "seven fair branches springing from one root." Here we see an image of unity, commonality, and harmony, whose "branches by the destinies cut" determine the fate of the throne. This sets the tone for the play, pointing out the stage of the "garden" or land of England. The "flourishing branch of his most royal root" explains the focus of the play on the seat of power, i.e. the root. Additionally, the "summer leaves all faded" suggests that although the foundation of the throne was intact, the particular rulers were beginning to fade just as the summer leaves are faded. In a sense a new season has begun, and a transition is about to occur. This garden imagery reinforces the foreshadowing in the text.
Later, England is described as "eden, demi-paradise." The ruler then had a very large task, almost godlike one, to keep this paradise pure. This responsibility is a natural and established one in that the "fortress is built by nature herself." It is up to the ruler to take this land and be a gardener for it, in this "blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England." The metaphor establishes England as the garden (perhaps original garden) and the King as the gardener. However, we see erosion in this garden in the form of the bothersome "caterpillars of the commonwealth." Clearly, we begin to see, all is not well in this garden.
In H41 we see a shift in imagery from the garden to that of the untamed land itself. The borders of the garden are unruly, just as the borders of England appear to be. There is "no more thirsty entrance of this soil." The land appears to be uncultivated, perhaps needing a new gardener, or King, to step in. Peace seems to loom ahead and so the king predicts that "no more shall trenching war her fields...to chase these pagans in those holy fields." In a sense, the king is passing on his tools and wisdom to his son, and showing him where new fields need to be plowed and tamed.
3A. Humor
Humor as a subject is very complicated, however there are some clear strains of humor which surface in the histories in interesting ways. The main figure that almost embodies humor is Falstaff/Oldcastle. It might seem odd that humor would play a role in these histories, which have tragic elements. Humor appears to serve two purposes: as a moral foil, and as a way to relieve tension. Probably there is an element of entertaining the audience, too, however, the humor appears to go much deeper than this. Other characters which are handled humorously are the people involved with treason, Mrs. Quickly, and the foreign people with their accents. There is some flexibility in portraying the humor, as in Laurence Olivier's version, the church is made fun of. However, I think that if you look only at the text, as clear strain appears. Every person who is portrayed in a humorous fashion are of questionable worth or of a lower class. Dignity appears to be limited to those in royalty.
I believe that the moral foil that Falstaff portrays reveals the deep underbelly and social commentary of the histories. For the kings, morality is black and white--very simple and clear. You are either good or bad, and you had to pick your sides clearly and surely. There was no middle ground for a king. Falstaff, on the other hand, portrays moral ambiguity. We like him, but we are aware of his faults. He refuses to take life seriously. He believes that "War is as much of a joke to him as a drinking bout at the Boar's Head." He uses people solely for his own purposes, either for money or for food and drink. He is rude and crude to all those around him and is one of the best liars who continually gets caught in his lies but makes new ones to cover for the old failed ones. However, with all these faults, he is Hal's friend when his father disapproves of him. He is kind to those who are in worse shape than him. He enters into the war scene, even though he is terrified. Additionally, the King and Hal consult with him. They ignore many of his faults, and forgives him of the other shortcomings. He socializes with those below him, and those much higher than him. In many ways he transcends social boundaries, and he gets away with many cutting and hilarious remarks that someone rooted in a social class could not. He has a license to be a gadfly of sorts, even though he isn't always tasteful about it. His humor buffers him against any true critique. In many ways, he is the ancestor to the modern day comic hero. Additionally, he parallels his contemporary Don Quixote. In fact, we see an interesting (and humorous) twist of perception when Hal says, "I know thee not." Falstaff is a character we don't know, even though we see him.
There are two worlds in the histories, and Falstaff serves as a bridge. Also he appears to serve as a bridge to the other lower class people who are portrayed with humor. In many ways, you wish it would rub off on King Henry, who appears to take himself too seriously. Perhaps this is Hal's true virtue--he is schooled in merriness whether he knows it or not.
4A. 2 speeches.
In John of Gaunt's speech, he sets up the role of the king by establishing the royal relationship to the land. The royal throne of kings is the sceptered isle, and he wants to convince his audience (King Richard and his friends) of this. He introduces the garden motif, in order to explain the interaction of the king (the gardener) to England (the garden). He is presenting the image of the good king, without directly criticizing King Richard. All he is really talking about is a garden, and you can ignore his point if you so desire. He describes a natural balance of things in this speech, a harmony that is the base point of reality. This speech is patriotic in the sense that it is a moral boost, and seems to be a kind effort to inspire King Richard in doing good. By describing England in such exaggerated terms--such as a seat of Mars, demi-paradise, a land of dear souls--he is trying to make England seem valuable to King Richard. In a sense, John is claiming that protecting England's interests is in King Richard's best interest. With hyperbole, and persuasion, he is pulling out all the rhetorical stops. However, his dramatic plea is ignored.
Hal's speech, on the other hand, appears to be more of a tribute than a tool of persuasion. In what appears to be almost a eulogy, Hal is bracing himself, and his men, in the face of death. They have made their choices in war, and now they must face the consequences. In this speech, Hal explains his motivations, and says that he isn't in this for money or jewels. His motivation instead is honor. In many ways, Hal appears to be the audience that actually listened to John of Gaunt's earlier speech. Hal argues that the legend should be the motivation for heroic actions--the long-term benefits were what he was promising to his men. He is also promising loyalty to anyone who fights with him. He is drawing the line in the sand, and setting his terms.
In many ways, John of Gaunt establishes the value of England. In turn, Hal promises to fight for this value. Both argue for loyalty, pride, and honor, and in their speeches, the dramatically demonstrate this passion for their land.
5. Histories.
I think Richard is the most Machiavellian. His psychological game pitting Mobray and Henry IV is truly horrible. There is no way that either can win, and in effect Richard victimizes them. Additionally he appears to derive joy from his decision which harms these two men. He verges on being a sadist.
In all of the plays, there are differences between the text and the actual histories. In many ways, the differences in the plays remind me of that in a TV movie based on a real story. In both cases a creative license is taken in order to make real life more dramatic.
First of all, Richard II does not provide enough historical context for the actions at the beginning of the play to be understandable. Shakespeare also idealizes Gaunt, and portrays him in as better than he was in real life. Additionally, Richard is portrayed in a much more negative light than is warranted. In many ways, it appears Shakespeare pandered to the bad press of his time.
Next, the plays of Henry IV were already so dramatic, Shakespeare didn't have to take as much creative license as he did in RII. However, he does exaggerate the scope of the battles, and other events slightly. Most of the changes Shakespeare makes appears to be for structural reasons. For instance, the Percy rebellion was more sudden than actually portrayed and more time lapsed in the rule of Henry before the Percy threat was terminated. Additionally, he excised the last 5 years of Henry's reign. One of the main differences between the text and history was the insertion of many invented characters. This appears to be for a dramatic, rather than thematic, effect.
Finally, there is Henry V. First of all, he probably didn't have such a "madcap" youth. Also, the struggle between his father and him probably wasn't so pronounced. Additionally, the courts characters are differentiated very well, similar to the insertion of invented characters. Finally, the Lollard uprising is ignored, so we get a different perception than that of his actual rule.
In conclusion, the account which appears to be most accurate is that of Richard II. It is based on a real event which was already "tabloid material." Despite the few changes that Shakespeare made, it appears to hold up most under historical scrutiny.