Shakespeare Fans discussion
This topic is about
Henry V
Group Readings
>
December read, Henry V
Mod
Mod
HENRY V
December 9 Act 1
December 16 Act 2
December 23 Act 3
December 30 Act 4
January 6 Act 5
I am so deeply excited about this! Henry V is my absolute favorite.
OK Candy, I'm in! I'll try to keep up, enjoy, and learn.
Sorry I missed last months TMWW, but I hope to be involved in discussion for this play, maybe Shakespeare's best historical play depending on how you rank Richard III and Julius Caesar.
Hello every one. Henry V is one of favorite works of Shakespeare I look forward to discussing it with everyone. John
Mod
O but for a muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention! May we cram within this wooden O (or glass and plastic rectangle) the very casques that did affright the air in Agincourt? This seemed an appropriate way to start the discussion. Read on!
Let us on your imaginary forces work.
Shakespeare sets up for several perspectives on Henry by starting with stirring, swirling oratory preparing the audience to Suppose within the girdle of these wallsThen thud, we get two scheming prelates who are proposing war to avoid losing property and tell us
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder.
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts:
Into a thousand parts divide one man,
And make imaginary puissance.
Think, when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i'th' receiving earth;
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there, jumping o'er times,
Turning th' accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass:
Then Henry summons them to his council and gives at least token acknowledgment of the human cost of war
(Henry) seems indifferent,
Or rather swaying more upon our part
Than cherishing th' exhibiters against us;
For I have made an offer to his majesty –
Upon our spiritual Convocation,
And in regard of causes now in hand,
Which I have opened to his grace at large
As touching France – to give a greater sum
Than ever at one time the clergy yet
Did to his predecessors part withal.
After the boring legalisms of salic law, enter the French ambassador with the dauphin's gift of tennis balls. Henry's response
For God doth know how many now in health
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war.
We charge you in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint
'Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto the swords
That makes such waste in brief mortality.
sounds like a tennis game-- mock, mock, mock, mock --but strikes widows, husbands, sons, mothers, some yet unborn.
And tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his
Hath turned his balls to gun-stones, and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.
The chorus is intriguing. The chorus is saying in essence, "There's no way to tell the entire story adequately on stage, so you'll have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks." At some level, this could be said about every play, movie, or TV show. Only so much can be shown on stage or on screen; you have to fill in the rest with your imagination.
Mod
It is so utterly wonderful...part simple part lovely images. I had tears well up in my eyes at "a kingdom for a stage"...
how amazing. We often see comparisons between his plays, but this one is so obvious. And a stage being a form of freedom is just wonderful. The stage is life, freedom, voice.
Night-music. Thank you so much for highlighting these perspectives between the speakers opinions. Very helpful.
Again, the writing during thes "tennis lobs" is really outstanding.
I had to work very hard at following the meanings....can you imagine memorizing these lines! My god!
To me, the whole Salic law discussion was the council trying to come up with an excuse to go to war. It reminded me of President Lyndon Johnson coming up with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to justify going into Vietnam, or President George W Bush coming up with weapons of mass destruction to justify going into Iraq. I should note that some productions cut the first scene after the chorus, usually in the interest of time.
The tennis balls incident is designed to show that Henry is no longer the Prince Hal from Henry IV parts 1 & 2. He's grown up. Henry V seems to be Shakespeare's ideal king. See if you get that when you read it. I've seen business books that use Shakespeare's Henry V as a model for organizational leadership. Part of me wouldn't go that far.
Mod
WESTMORELAND But there's a saying very old and true,
'If that you will France win, 170
Then with Scotland first begin:'
For once the eagle England being in prey,
To her unguarded nest the weasel Scot
Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,
Playing the mouse in absence of the cat, 175
To tear and havoc more than she can eat.
Regarding the referendum...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish...
(side note....scotland and england were at war an awful lot and it was only a couple years 4-5 years after this play that they made a union ...of sorts)
Remember all those old men would have been the ones observing Prince Hal who would have thought to themselves - what are we going to do about this kid- in the opening chorus we are set for war. With the deaths of the traitors, Henry is seen in contrast to his carefree Hal.
Ah, politics. As if life isn't full enough, we have to read about Medieval politics, where everyone rationalizes to their heart's delight, just like our present-day clods. I suppose I'm in an ugly mood about politics, because,although with Candy, I acknowledge the beautiful prologue's evoking of the audience's imagination, I am also seeing it in a double vision of groveling brown nosing to the Lancasters. This is, after all, Elizabeth's great-great-great (do I have the number right?) grandfather, whose history is being held up to so great a height, (while delicately skipping backwards past all the nearer relatives who killed each other). It irks me to see religion invoked (well of course, that was how it was done then!) as a source of inspiration for a land grab.
I had forgotten that the French and Scots were so often joined against their common enemy England, and this was probably a particular sore point with Elizabeth, as her chief threat and rival, Mary Queen of Scots, was the very embodiment of this Union, with her French mother, Mary of Guise (Mary herself raised in the French court and betrothed to the Dauphin at 6 months? I hear) and her Scottish Father. Her very existence proved the persistence of the Franco-Scots alliance against her--both of course Catholic in those turbulent religious times. I wonder if this is why the Dauphin in this Act is made to look the cocky rude boy.
I'm wondering if Elizabeth already had cousin Mary under lock and key when this play was presented.
It amuses me to see Shakespeare laying seeds to praise his own speech making early in the play (Iii) which of course is amazing...that famous "We happy few, we band of brothers.." speech can bring even a tear to any political cynic's eye.
Elizabeth also would have been interested in all the Salic law argument. I'm afraid the "bad German women" argument wouldn't be welcomed so readily by the present House of Windsor royals, haha!
I'm hoping someone can give me a good deep dissection of the underlying meaning of the tennis ball scene--I always felt like I missed something in the insult. First, I wanna know what a medieval tennis ball even looked like!
The tennis ball insult was that King Henry just liked to play around, and wasn't a serious king. The French thought he was still the same Prince Hal from Henry IV parts 1&2. His response is, "You think I'm the same old Prince Hal? Watch me." As for what tennis balls looked like back then, the production I saw used plain gray balls, which is probably close. Also, Henry was a Plantagenet.
Joseph wrote: "The tennis ball insult was that King Henry just liked to play around, and wasn't a serious king. The French thought he was still the same Prince Hal from Henry IV parts 1&2. His response is, "You t..."Re tennis balls:That makes sense!
But, about Henry--the wikipedia article you posted says, "Henry V (16 September 1386/1387 – 31 August 1422[1][2]) was King of England from 1413 until his death at the age of either 34 or 35 in 1422. He was the second English monarch who came from the House of Lancaster."
I always think of the Plantagenets going further back in English history, to William the Conqueror, Henry II ...do they still use the Plantagenet name this late? I'm sure there is still some blood connection.
Spoiler alert. Henry will use the Plantaganet name later in the play.
Joseph wrote: "Spoiler alert. Henry will use the Plantaganet name later in the play."Oh, yeah...I remember that now. More rationalization;)
Mod
People still use this. "God Bless America" is often announced when announcing war invasions.
Back in Henry's time, church and state were extremely intertwined. The bishops would have consulted with the King on matters of state. Henry ruled before the Reformation, so he would have gotten advice from Rome. In Elizabeth's time, there was still quite a bit of this. The difference is that Elizabeth was also head of the Church of England, thanks to her father, Henry VIII. (Incidentally, if Prince Harry ever became king, he would be Henry IX.)
Candy wrote: "Tracy, " It irks me to see religion invoked (well of course, that was how it was done then!) as a source of inspiration for a land grab."People still use this. "God Bless America" is often announ..."
Right.
“O for a muse of fire”, for me the most powerful phrase signifying inspiration. Just thinking the words in my mind creates such resonance that my whole spine shivers. From the very first time I heard them from Derek Jacobi in Branagh's film version until now in Joseph’s intro for the group reading. You see, I grew up and live in Guatemala, a small country in Central America, with a poor education system, even in private education, and there I was almost fifteen years ago, standing in front of a VCR rental, looking at the very limited number of Shakespeare titles. I took this one for the weekend and there I was hooked, paying attention, listening intently to the words and language, although I could only understand about 10 or 20% of it, I could feel the power, the intensity and the feelings conveyed by the actors and the words.
An intriguing prologue, scheming bishops, and a king’s pretty serious reaction to a mockery, I remember understanding very little of what was said, but I could not take my attention from it, it makes me think now that this could have been the way common people from S time was enthralled just as I was, and still am.
After this experience the next step was reading the play, back then it was hard to get an actual english annotated version in my country, I read it in spanish but of course it lacked the power and intensity until I printed the plain text from the internet, and again understanding very little, it still became one of my favorite plays. It even inspired me to learn french.
P.S. Today, thanks by online shopping, I have my annotated RSC edition and again such a joy.
Mod
Question here, this called my attention:"My learned lord, we pray you to proceed
And justly and religiously unfold
...
And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading,
Or nicely charge your understanding soul
With opening titles miscreate, whose right
Suits not in native colours with the truth;
For God doth know how many now in health
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to."
I see King Henry being prudent here, not eager to go to war and avoid "much fall of blood", I sense him being concern not to lose a "cousin" or see his beloved England damaged by the loss of many subjects, instead of being ambitious and get more land for himself.
But, he seems also suspicious about Canterbury's intentions, is there a reason why King HV should be extra careful with him? Maybe something he knows from a previous play? Or is this to show more of the King's maturity for taking on "things of weight"?
I don't recall any mention of Canterbury in HIV i or ii; there was only the Archbishop of York who is one of the rebels, and therefore a loser who I doubt would have been promoted up. But, my memory could be bad..
Aa we move on to Act II, consider how Henry V emulates this verse from St Paul's 1st Letter to the Corinthians: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, thought as a child, and reasoned as a child. When I became a man, I put childish things aside." The audience in Shakespeare's time would definitely have known about this verse.
On stage, I've sometimes seen Canterbury played as a comic character; like a Polonius, doddering and pedantic. His speech is long, and full of asides and "to wit"s and the like, but it never struck me, reading it, as intended to be funny. Especially when he follows it up with "unwind your bloody flag" and invoking Edward the Black Prince.I'm curious to see what others thought of the character and his speech. Was all that detail familiar to Shakespeare's audience, was it intended to sound scholarly and convincing, or was it meant as a parody of a pedantic ecclesiast?
I'm not exactly sure. In the performance I saw, at the Great River Shakespeare Festival in Winona, MN in 2013, it was played straight. As I've said, some performances have cut the scene entirely, so that may be how they solve the problem.
Perhaps Henry V’s most remarkable quality is his resolve: once he has set his mind to accomplishing a goal, he uses every resource at his disposal to see that it is accomplished. He carefully presents himself as an unstoppable force to whom others must actively choose how to react. This tactic may seem morally questionable, but it is a valuable psychological weapon that Henry uses to pressure his enemies into doing what he wants.
In Act II, the Chorus starts to act like the narrator in a movie, just like A Christmas Story or Forrest Gump. It's the only way to move the action to the next scene.
We're on to Act II now. In the scene where the traitors are arrested, he shows off his skill, and shows that he is not to be messed with. He first asks whether he should show mercy to someone who insulted him the other night. Henry writes it off to the other person's drunkenness, rather than intention. The traitors then say no, you need to set the example. Henry then hands them their commissions. When they read them, their faces turn white. The play doesn't say what was on the paper, but it probably was something like, "I know what you did. You're busted," although in Shakespearean language. The traitors beg for mercy, but Henry reminds them that they denied mercy just a few minutes ago, so they're not entitled to any. Henry also says that he could forgive an attack on him personally, but this was an attack on the crown. The traitors are sentenced to death.
Another post from Act II. Falstaff dies. Pistol and Hostess Quickly are married. The remnants of Henry IV parts 1 & 2 are being swept away. Anyone else have any thoughts on Act II?
Scene 2 is an important one for the development of Henry's character. Bowdlerizing that scene was the biggest misstep in the Olivier movie adaptation, to my mind. For those who haven't seen it, the scene is cut to just three or four lines--Henry asks that the person who criticized him be pardoned, the conspirators ask him to be more severe, the King says, no, we'll be merciful...and then Henry's last few line and the scene ends. We're only in Southampton for about ninety seconds, total, and there's no hint of any English traitors.
That the Olivier movie adaptation does that is not surprising. His movie version of Hamlet cut Rosencrantz and Guildenstern out completely. I do think that this scene is important, as well as an upcoming scene in Act III. It's a step toward Henry living up to the verse from St Paul I quoted earlier, "When I became a man, I put childish things aside."
Scene 4 has my favorite quote in this act, Dauphin: "In cases of defence 'tis best to weigh/The enemy more mighty than he seems."It sounds so Sun Tzu-like and maybe, as we will find out, if the French had taken the fight straight to Henry then, they might have came out better. The Duke of Exeter tells the French king later in that scene, "if you hide the crown even your hearts, there will [Henry] rake for it." Shakespeare has of believe that the French did not realize what was coming until the day of Agincourt itself.
Mod
I am lurking at this moment....and loving the posts here. I am behind but after a crazy week in "real life" I will be back. I hate to interprupt the discussion to whigne about how busy blah blah blah...life got in the way. But I'm reeling in the important thing in life....reading and discussing Shakespeare!
Great job Joseph! And let me gather my thoughts on Act 1 and 2
What a great story this is!
Mod
It would not be unheard of, but given Shakespeare's standard "m.o" when it came to history plays we should be careful. He did not care for accuracy and because of politics, all of his history plays about England are Lancasterian-Tudor propaganda.
Mod
As for the history in shakespeare...I really don't put much expectation. I don't think they are histories to be historically accurate. I think he wrote histories in order to critics and or observe his contemporary society without getting his head on a post. LOL
I've got some reading to do....this is a thick set of scenes I must say. And of course....my wifi is acting up. It's been difficult for me to get onto the site here. I have Comcast techs coming over to replace modem and wifi tomorrow. YAY!
I agree Candy that war does not come off as glorious in most Shakespeare plays. I think this is part of wider sentiment that Elizabethan England had after surviving the Spanish Armada and basically being black-listed by a majority of countries in continental Europe because of the Reformation and Elizabeth I ascension.
We'll be on to Act III this week. In my blog, I posed a translation of Scene 4, which is primarily in French. The translation was done through Google Translate, so it may not be the best, but it gives you an idea. Many times this scene is cut, simply because many people don't understand French. I spoke to one actress at the Great River Shakespeare Festival, and asked her how she was able to do the scene. She said she learned her lines phonetically, and doesn't know any French beyond that. The joke at the end is that Catherine's mispronunciation of the English causes her to utter some obscenities in French. To keep this a PG-rated blog, I won't say what they are, except that one starts with an F, and the other starts with a C.http://jmbooktalk.blogspot.com/2014/1...
The Chorus speeches are marvelous. I'd like to hear all of them, one after another while sitting before a roaring fire with a mug of grog.
I hope everyone had a great Christmas. This week we'll be focusing on acts 3&4. In the GRSF production, the final scene before intermission was Bardolph being executed for the theft from the church. The fist scene after intermission was the Chorus from Act IV, with the final scene from Act III after the Chorus. Do you think that's a better way to present this than what Shakespeare did? Share your thoughts here.
Did that production stage Bardolph's hanging?Was Act III Scene 6 performed in its entirety, including Montjoy's message and Henry's response after Henry confirms his approval of Bardolph's hanging?
My understanding is that the original productions were performed without intermissions. I can understand not wanting to add an intermission after Act III Scene 7 in the French camp. Not as dramatic as breaking after Henry refuses to pardon his old pub pal.
I won't say it's better than Shakespeare's flow. The Chorus' opening for Act IV describing the two opposing camps watching each other through the night follows logically from seeing the French posturing in their camp. With no intermission, it doesn't flow as dramatically in reverse. Feels flatter to me.
Shakespeare Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Richard III (other topics)Julius Caesar (other topics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_...
Here is an article about the battle of Agincourt, which figures in the play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_o...