HENRY V: THE HERO KING?
Author: Adam Alston
Source: The Shakespeare Revue, (June, 2008), pp. 1-10
URL: http://www.shakespeare-revue.com/misc.php?mid=22&action=displayITW
Abstract: A look at Michael Boyd's recent production of 'Henry V' at the RSC. An
examination of the play's ambiguities and a challenge to the traditional notion of Henry as the
'hero King'.
This article is under the sole copyright of the author and is re-printed here at THE
SHAKESPEARE REVUE with express authorial permission. Any re-print or further usage
may not be pursued without permission of the author. Contact the author at
[email protected].
THE SHAKESPEARE REVUE is a non-profit electronic magazine founded in 1996 to
explore historical productions of Shakespeare's plays and see how the performance history
had changed over the years. Over time, the magazine expanded to include modern and
international productions, and is now intended to exist as a digital resource of performance
history: past, present and international, for use as a tool for research and enjoyment. For more
information, please contact the editors at [email protected].
Henry V: the Hero King?
ADAM ALSTON
Michael Boyd’s direction of Shakespeare’s Henry V at the RSC has provided a
refreshing change from the politically biased productions of previous years.
Companies and directors had struggled to shake Laurence Olivier’s presiding
influence after his 1944 film, Henry V, which set in stone the traditional, patriotic
‘hero’ King of unquestionable piety. Adrian Noble challenged Henry’s integrity in
1984 with the focus now on his youthfulness, a stronger eye cast upon Prince Hal’s
journey towards Kingship. Two years later, Michael Bogdanov, in a 1986 RSC
production, placed the humanitarian cost of any war at the fore. Boyd’s production
offers a more rounded King and a balanced argument in regard to war. To shed the
political biases of Olivier or Bogdanov is to procure a degree of freedom to explore
the play’s intricacies, the result closer to what I suggest was the intention of the
playwright. The dichotomy between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ readings of Henry’s actions
suggest a degree of evidence to support Boyd’s conscious ambiguity.
The aim of the RSC today is to keep modern audiences in touch with
Shakespeare as our contemporary1 (rsc.org.uk, 2007: /aboutthersc). Olivier’s 1944 film
may not have been affiliated with the RSC, but it was a direct response to
contemporary circumstances. Winston Churchill was reputed to have commissioned
the work to pull the patriotic heartstrings of a nation whose faith in war was
floundering. Bogdanov in 1986 asserted parallels between the invasion of France and
the Falkland wars: the Histories provide suitable material to recognize that the lessons
of history remain buried. Both directors use the text as a means to a political end
drawing on its contemporary relevance. But in what ways might Boyd’s production be
said to speak to a contemporary audience? This paper is split into three sections: the
first addresses the traditional readings of the play that may be taken from Boyd’s
production, the second offers alternative readings and questions the validity of those
posed in part one whilst the third, concluding section, addresses the ambiguous
synthesis when the play’s complexities are performed simultaneously.
1
The phrasing would appear to draw on the title of Jan Kott’s influential book, Shakespeare our
Contemporary. Kott proposed that Shakespeare was as relevant for a contemporary audience as for an
Elizabethan.
The Shakespeare Revue
1
1. Henry: heroic, virtuous and just
Lily Campbell suggests that Henry V stands alone in the Histories in depicting the
English as ‘triumphant in a righteous cause, achieving victory through the blessing of
God’ (Berman, 1968: 15). To follow Campbell’s questionable line of argument, Henry
is every inch the hero King, an account of which can be traced to his official
biography written by Tito Livio. This is questionable because the brother of Henry V,
Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, commissioned the biography (Berman, 1968: 15). A
degree of sibling affection is bound to taint the account and as such a degree of
caution must be granted. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that
Henry V was the chivalrous and just King that history remembers and the heroic
qualities of both Henry’s character and his actions do permeate Boyd’s production.
“HISTORIES” is stamped in bold letters on Boyd’s posters and programmes for
all those plays involved in the History Cycle, firmly setting each and every play in the
context of seven others. Motifs consistently appear in each: James Jones and John
Woolf’s staccato, percussive score; Tom Piper’s durable rusted metal set; and most
notably the use of ‘verticality’ 2. Boyd’s characteristic use of verticality in Henry V had
the flighty, arrogant French in mid-air on trapezes, literally with their heads-in-theclouds, counteracted by the earthy, pragmatic metaphor for the English, manifested
by their being “of the earth” and “in the earth”, scurrying out of stage trapdoors. With
the French quite literally being cut down to size, brought down to earth with a crash
after the bloody conflict of Agincourt, the English seemed all the more great, standing
tall on their own two feet.
Boyd’s direction invites us to compare each history with the others. In contrast
with Shakespeare’s other kings, it is difficult to regard Henry V as anything but a
favourable alternative. Richard II was deposed having neglected his duty to aptly serve
his state; Henry IV was ruthless and merciless; Henry VI was like a lamb to the slaughter
ascending the throne at such a young age; and Richard III’s primary concern was
himself at the cost of the state. Henry V’s victories in Agincourt, his piety and the
respect from his fellow men place him in a different league to his predecessors and
descendents. Henry may be the pragmatist and the ideal authoritative figure in times
of war. As he proclaims before the Governor at Harfleur III 3:
2
‘Verticality’: by this I mean use of the area above the stage as acting or metaphorical space. Actors
are often suspended mid-air: the French hang from trapezes in Henry V; Forbes Masson descends
from the rafters playing a grand piano in both Richard II and Henry V; battles commence hanging
from ropes in Henry VI Part 1. Dust descends from the rafters onto the deposed Richard’s head in
Richard II and feathers onto the head of the fragile boy King in Henry VI.
The Shakespeare Revue
2
I am a soldier,
A name that, in my thoughts, becomes me best (Shakespeare, 1996: 497).
His pragmatic decisions at Harfleur and Agincourt, his knowledge of the soldiers’
psyche and his excellent choice of words at the right times are what gathers his ailing
troops together to fight with and alongside Henry. He considers himself a soldier first,
having fought in the Welsh Wars against Owain Glyn Dwr’s revolt of 1400 as a young
teenager and fighting in a bloody and uncompromising environment for six years
(Royal Shakespeare Company, 1984). It may be said that Henry lacks the hypocrisy of
the other Kings: he deserves the respect of his troops as he fights alongside them,
leading by example and practising what he preaches. M.M.Reese has argued that, ‘if
Shakespeare had any secret reservations about the character, they are not apparent
on the stage, where Henry is virtuous, strong and gay, a born leader of men’ (Berman,
1968: 91). As Charles Spencer noted in a recent review, ‘there is, mercifully, no
introduction of irony into Henry’s great rallying speeches to the troops’ (Charles
Spencer, 2007). Twenty-first century cynicism is avoided for a genuine honesty, a
heroic call to arms for a cause deemed just and under Holy sanction by Henry. This
sincerity, this unrelenting belief in his cause, plays a prominent role in the delivery of
Streatfield’s speeches. In an interview I conducted with the play’s assistant director,
Donnacadh O’Briain, he asserted that Streatfield believes wholeheartedly in Henry’s
actions, that the means justify the ends: a belief which came across clearly in
performance3.
Reese’s choice of adjectives demand further justification: “virtuous”, “strong”
and “gay”. We can believe in Henry, in the ideals noted by Reese, because of his past
and development as a character4 . Prince Hal of 1&2 Henry IV is rebellious, self-reliant,
witty and troublesome. Henry has emerged from human roots, from the loveable
embrace of Falstaff, and not from an isolated environment where human contact is
minimised or neglected. It is from these roots that a humanitarian foundation can be
laid, a foundation that is to prove instrumental in commanding the respect of his
army: a respect that works towards a victory against all the odds. The transformation is
3
This is not to say that the audience agree. As parts 2 and 3 will examine, there are alternative
readings.
4
The Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledges that, ‘Never was such a sudden scholar made; /
Never came reformation in a flood’ (Shakespeare, 1996: 486). This sudden change from “waster” to
“scholar” where, as the chronicler Walsingham claimed, ‘only a miracle can account for the abrupt
transition from waster to serious monarch’ (Berman, 1968: 37), detracts from the transition’s validity
insofar as it seems miraculous or as if Henry’s change was some façade.
The Shakespeare Revue
3
granted further validity in having Geoffrey Streatfield play both Prince Hal and Henry
V. As Maureen Beattie noted in a post-show talk to Richard II5 , it was Streatfield’s
durability as an actor, a durability encompassing the wit, rebelliousness and playfulness
of Hal as well as the calculation and command of Henry, that gave credit to this
sudden transition from rogue to royalty. Elements of Hal’s persona emerge in Henry’s
cheekiness when wooing Katherine in V 2 with the delivery of such lines as, ‘Give me
your answer; I’faith, / do; and so clap hands and a bargain’ (Shakespeare, 1996:516).
Boyd consistently puts Henry V in the broader context of The Histories offering a
hallmark for his remarkable understanding of the plays’ complexities and continuity.
Henry’s strength is rooted in his transcendence of fearing death. Before
Agincourt, where the English are outnumbered five to one, he proclaims to
Westmoreland that, ‘The fewer men, the greater share of honour. / God’s will! I pray
thee, wish not one man more’ (Shakespeare, 1996: 507). If the souls of both Henry and
his fellow men are clean, then a life eternally blessed awaits if they were to fall in battle.
Every subject’s duty may be towards the King, ‘but every subject’s / soul is his own’
(Shakespeare, 1996: 505) and, if pure, will be safe in the hands of God. Henry can
provide his troops with the fearless demeanour necessary to inspire his army with the
faith they require because he believes his cause to be righteous. As Elmer Edgar Stroll
suggests, ‘a King, like a god on the stage, must every minute remember, and make us
remember too, that he is nothing less’ (Berman, 1968: 104). Streatfield was fearless on
the stage, laughing with his fellow men before Agincourt in IV 1 whilst sitting upon the
stage floor alongside his fellow warriors. The contrast forged in the context of The
Histories is striking when juxtaposed with the hopelessness of Jonathan Slinger’s
Richard and his evocative speech in III 2 of Richard II. Imploring Sir Stephen Scroop
and the Duke of Aumerle, Richard cries, ‘For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground, /
And tell sad stories of the death of kings’ (Shakespeare, 1996: 374). Streatfield was a
King one could respect and follow into battle; Slinger offered a wasted skeleton of
Royalty, a man pushed to the edge of his endurance. Henry knows how to capture the
imagination of his troops in ways that Richard could only dream of, providing the
motive for Winston Churchill’s decision to commission Olivier to make his 1944 film.
Henry is precisely the figurehead a nation requires in times of conflict. This is
especially the case when one considers the seeds of conflict already ingrained in
Britain, both in Churchill’s time and in Henry’s.
5
Orated after Richard II in response to a question regarding how one might deal with playing various
roles.
The Shakespeare Revue
4
Motives for descending from the call to France were the threats from Scotland
and Wales. By heading to war, Henry attempted to unite a nation towards a common
cause. The War was as much a political requirement as a call to answer a dynastic
claim to a foreign throne. Henry was standing to either win or lose a great deal as an
individual and his pragmatism, strength and influence are undermined if his cause was
not just.
2. Henry: tyrant, hypocrite and ruthless
Here lies the heart of the ambiguity that made Boyd’s production so
wonderfully poignant. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries regarded Henry’s cause as
just: his dynastic claims to the throne are comparable to contemporary government’s
ownership of land. But this doesn’t necessitate that the causes in either case are
justifiable, or that the loss of human life is balanced by the potential political gain.
Bogdanov’s 1986 production was a direct response to the problem of the Falkland
wars; the conflict rooted in what was essentially a land-based issue. I think it would be
rash to claim Boyd’s production was a direct response to Middle-Eastern conflict. But
it does comment on the universal nature of war: it clarifies war’s human cost and
necessitates the need for adequate analysis of a country’s motives for waging war.
As noted, one motive for the French battles was to unify the nation, but that’s
not to say that the motives were entirely selfless. Henry’s right to the crown is dubious
in the context of Richard II6 : a facet we are reminded of as Henry prays to God on the
eve of Agincourt in IV 1, a speech poignantly dictated whilst Streatfield fights back a
tear:
O, not to-day, think not upon the fault / My father made in compassing the
crown! (Shakespeare, 1996: 506)
A.C. Bradley has suggested that Henry V is every inch his belligerent father’s son,
negating those critics who have proposed that in Henry, ‘Shakespeare plainly disclosed
his own ethical creed’ (Berman, 1968: 99). There are elements of self-preservation that
soon become apparent when one takes into account the potential political benefits
that war procures in securing his own right to the throne of England. Henry is
perfectly willing to have his conscience quelled by the Archbishop’s dubious and
6
See Shakespeare’s Richard II. Richard is deposed and later murdered whilst in confinement leaving
the path clear for Henry Bolingbroke, Henry V’s father, to ascend to the throne.
The Shakespeare Revue
5
amusing Salic law speech defining Henry’s claim to the French throne. Geoffrey
Freshwater’s delivery of the speech is of particular note. Having seen the production
twice, it was interesting to note the various changes which were made. On the first
viewing, the speech was stumbled over and delivered with a degree of selfconsciousness which worked because it made the content appear ridiculous, trite and
dubiously erudite. The second viewing allowed for a great deal more confidence on
Freshwater’s behalf: he revelled in his own inflated superiority, conscious of the fact
that his stale logic will confuse each and every person present, the audience included,
and, as such, adopted a pedantic and patronising tone which, to the audience’s
delight, undermined the speech’s content. In the programme for Boyd’s production
Stephen Greenblatt suggests that Henry’s and the nation’s interests are inextricably
intertwined, blurring what is essentially a personal victory for Henry as the victory of a
nation with the blessing of God borrowed to add divine authority to an otherwise
bloody act resulting in ten thousand French dead and twenty nine English (Royal
Shakespeare Company, 2007). Freshwater’s delivery of the Salic speech, turning a
potentially monotonous drone into satirical absurdity, puts Henry’s easy persuasion
into troublesome water. It detracts from an autonomous decision, from his integrity as
King. Henry’s ‘Divine right’ is stained with the blood of thousands, his success
dependent on the sacred foil tacked on to an egotistical action providing the façade
for tyrannical slaughter. But of all Henry’s virtues, the strongest would seem to be
piety. His faith in God is stoical. Bradley agrees that Henry’s religion is genuine but
reveals misgivings: it is rooted in superstition, ‘an attempt to buy off supernatural
vengeance for Richard’s blood’ (Berman, 1968: 99). It’s hard to discredit the extent to
which Henry praises God in both public and private and I believe this claim must be
considered with a critical eye before attaching significant authority. But Henry
believed his cause to be just precisely because he believed God to favour it. In the
programme notes to Adrian Noble’s 1984 production, John Gillingham recalls a
Spanish Friar, St. Vincent Ferrier, ‘who preached before him asking him why he
oppressed Christian peoples, [and] was told that Henry regarded himself as the
scourge of God sent to punish people for their sins’ (Royal Shakespeare Company,
1984). This is entirely fitting with the speech dictated to the Governor of Harfleur in
III 3:
‘with foul hand / Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters; Your Fathers taken
by their silver beards, / And their most reverend heads dasht to the walls; your naked
infants spitted upon pikes’ (Shakespeare, 1996: 498),
The Shakespeare Revue
6
With the Ten Commandments in mind and the preaching of Jesus Christ, it’s difficult
to justify Henry’s evocation of God to support his brutal threats and actions7 . In doing
so, God is dragged down to the battlefield and must be held accountable for
slaughter: a slaughter Christ could never justify and a slaughter Boyd makes ever
present on stage with the French dead hanging from trapezes and the English corpses
carried onstage in coffins.
Jan Kott makes a sublime observation to discredit Elmer Edgar Stroll’s
proposition that a King must be like a god on stage. In the histories there are no gods,
‘only kings, every one of whom is an executioner, and a victim, in turn. There are also
living, frightened people. They can only gaze upon the grand staircase of history. But
their own fate depends upon who will reach the highest step’ (Kott, 1965: 17). Firstly,
Streatfield offers a truer account of Henry’s character than that offered by Olivier.
Olivier’s integrity and honour made him virtually super human, godlike, whereas
Streatfield kept in mind his roots in Eastcheap alongside Falstaff: definitively human
roots. Secondly, if Henry had undergone a learning curve, rooted in his humanitarian
understanding forged alongside Falstaff, then he would be aware of the inevitable loss
to human life that war will cost. Instead, he is the scourge of ‘living, frightened
people’: a tyrant willing to let his men defile the inhabitants of Harfleur, as quoted
earlier in the paper, orated to the Governor of Harfleur in III 3. Innocent women and
children are to be slaughtered if Henry allows his men to defile them. M.M.Reese’s
“virtuous” and “gay” side of Henry is certainly questioned. Are these the words of a
man whose primary concern is humanitarianism and justice? Olivier’s cause is
shrouded in glory whereas Streatfield directly acknowledges the human sacrifice his
cause entailed as strikingly symbolised in IV 7 when he hears of his victorious result
whilst clutching the bloodied corpse of the boy. He makes an effort to stand and carry
the boy after naming the battlefield, “the field of Agincourt’, only to buckle under the
weight of the body. The boy becomes symbolic of all those lives slaughtered in battle.
The blood literally stains Henry’s crown, a position and a cause that no one man can
carry, that can never be justified.
Charles Williams has suggested that with the loss of Hotspur and Falstaff the
stage is free for King Henry to develop his own values and ideals, specifically honour
(Berman, 1968: 30). But these values are dubious when one considers Henry’s
7
For a medieval civilian and a sixteenth century playgoer, the Divine Right of the Sovereign King
added weighty support to his decisions and actions. If the King were crowned as a result of God’s
Divine plan, then his actions and deeds would have been justified.
The Shakespeare Revue
7
rejection of Falstaff, the weight of which crushed Falstaff’s will to live8 . This rejection is
manifested on stage in Boyd’s production where Pistol wears the red scarf donned by
Falstaff in 1&2 Henry IV. We are reminded of the cruel turn Henry took against
Falstaff in 2 Henry IV’s conclusion. M.M.Reese proposed that Henry’s virtue lay in his
rebellious youth:
‘Human virtue is always muddied, or it would not be human’ (Berman, 1968: 93).
I believe the quote to be more apt in something like an inverse format: it is Hal’s youth
where the real, human virtues remain, virtues which are muddied when self-interest
and protection of dynasty are privileged over the sacrifice of thousands and of one’s
closest friends.
Honour is a virtue often attributed to Henry but, as William Hazlitt argues, he
was, ‘fond of war and low company: - we know little else of him (…) he seemed to have
no idea of right and wrong, but brute force, glossed over with a little religious
hypocrisy’ (Quinn, 1969: 36). The ‘low company’ to which Hazlitt refers, Falstaff
included, are perhaps the most amicable characters in Shakespeare and consequently
do not add great weight to his proposition, but the idea of religious hypocrisy,
embodied by both the Archbishop’s financial self-interest in persuading Henry to go
to war, and Henry’s religious beliefs used to justify brutal violence contrary to Jesus
Christ’s teachings, is particularly telling. Hazlitt goes onto suggest that Henry is a hero
only insofar as the assumption that, ‘he was ready to sacrifice his own life for the
pleasure of destroying thousands of other lives’ (Quinn, 1969: 37). The lustful and
uplifting character of his battle speeches, not wishing one more to join on the field of
Agincourt for fear of stealing a slice of the honour, does suggest a degree of pleasure
in taking these lives so that their names be remembered, ‘with advantages’
(Shakespeare, 1996: 508). Hazlitt’s claims, though founded upon a distinct bias against
Henry’s character, do deserve attention.
It is the ambiguity that arises in Boyd’s production that synthesises Henry’s
negative and positive traits. It shows great delicacy that Boyd chose not to go so far
down the negative line proposed by Hazlitt in favour of this ambiguity: a delicacy
which would have well befitted Bogdanov’s negative polarity and Olivier’s positive
propaganda.
8
The Hostess in II 1: ‘…the King has kill’d his heart’ (Shakespeare, 1996: 491).
The Shakespeare Revue
8
3. Concluding synthesis: ambiguity
If unification was an English motive for the invasion of France, then Fluellen’s
arguments with Macmorris and Pistol suggest that there is still discord in the ranks:
that war hasn’t unified, but complemented already existing prejudices9 . The
confrontation between Fluellen and Pistol in V I had blood dripping from Pistol’s nose
and head after a violent beating. The audience’s laughter, in response to Slinger’s
masterful stock-comic Welsh intonation of Fluellen’s text, was accompanied by guilt: a
quintessential example of “twoness”, the term borrowed from the interview I
conducted with Donnacadh O’Briain (O’Briain, 2007). The word describes the heart
of the ambiguity and complexities that Boyd and O’Briain have drawn from the texts.
So whilst Fluellen’s revenge against the rogue Pistol is funny, suitable light relief after
the battle, there remains a disturbing element bloodily exposed on stage.
The word “twoness” is preferred to “dichotomy” because the complexities need
not be at polar opposites. “Twoness” aptly coins the heart of Henry V’s ambiguity.
Henry achieves a great victory at Agincourt but tyrannical means were implemented;
he may have gone to Agincourt to reclaim the throne of France, but only in an effort
to secure his own troublesome English crown; Henry may be pragmatic and
calculated, but this pragmatism sources his decision to kill each and every French
prisoner in IV 6. “Two-ness” was ignored by Olivier and overshadowed by Bogdanov. It
is in this context that I support my introductory claim that Boyd offers a valid account
of Henry V’s complexities as intended by Shakespeare.
9
Gower in many ways reflects Shakespeare’s ideal preacher of unification. But even he lets Fluellen’s
brutal tactics in dealing with Pistol’s prejudice in V 1 pass. Violence breeds violence.
The Shakespeare Revue
9
REFERENCES
BERMAN, Ronald, ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry V: a Collection of Critical Essays.
Prentice-Hall Inc: Englewood Cliffs, 1968.
BILLINGTON, Michael. Henry V. Guardian Unlimited. 08/11/07 (accessed 01/12.07)
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/drama/reviews/story/0,,2207147,00.html
DUNGATE, Rod. RSC: Henry V. Reviews Gate 07/11/2007 (accessed 01/12/07)
http://reviewsgate.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3718
HENRY V. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Michael Boyd. RSC. Courtyard Theatre, StratfordUpon-Avon. 30/10/07.
HENRY V. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Michael Boyd. RSC. Courtyard Theatre, StratfordUpon-Avon. 01/12/07.
KOTT, Jan. Shakespeare our Contemporary. Trans. Boleslaw Taborski. London: Methuen, 1965
(2 nd edition).
O’BRIAIN, Donnacadh. Personal Interview. 04/12/07.
QUINN, Michael, ed. Shakespeare: Henry V, a Casebook. London: Macmillan, 1969.
RICHARD II. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Michael Boyd. RSC. Courtyard Theatre, StratfordUpon-Avon. 20/11/07.
ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY. Programme Notes for Henry V. Dir. Adrian Noble,
Stratford-Upon-Avon, 1984.
ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY. Programme Notes for Henry V. Dir. Michael Boyd.
Stratford-upon-Avon, 2007.
RSC.ORG.UK. Royal Shakespeare Company (02/12/07). http://rsc.org.uk
SHAKESPEARE, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. (The Shakespeare Head
Press Edition). Ware: Editions, 1996 (3rd edition).
SPENCER, Charles. Henry V Rouses the Souls of Men. The Telegraph. 08/11/07 (accessed
01/12/07) http://telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/11/08/bthenry108.xml
The Shakespeare Revue
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.
The Shakespeare Revue
11