Masaryk University Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

We, Band of Brothers in Arms Friendship and Violence in Henry V by William Shakespeare

Bachelor thesis

Brno 2016

Supervisor: Author:

Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk Vladimír Ovčáček

Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou práci na téma ‘We, Band of Brothers in Arms - Friendship and Violence in Henry V by William Shakespeare’ vypracoval samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Souhlasím, aby práce byla uložena na Masarykově univerzitě v Brně v knihovně Pedagogické fakulty a zpřístupněna ke studijním účelům.

V Brně dne…………………………..

Podpis………………………………. - 1 -

I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends, without whose support I would never have a chance to reach this important point of my life.

I would also like to thank Mgr. Jaroslav Izavčuk for his kind support, helpful advice, and patience.

- 2 -

Anotace

Tato bakalářská práce analyzuje hru Jindřich V. od Wiliama Shakespeara, a to z hlediska násilí a přátelství, jakožto témat často se objevujících v této hře. Bakalářská práce je tvořena teoretickou a praktickou částí. V teoretické části je popsán děj hry a jsou zde také určeny cíle této práce. Dále jsou zde charakterizovány termíny násilí a přátelství a popsán způsob jakým bylo v renesančním dramatu vnímáno násilí. Dále jsem zde vytvořil hypotézu a definoval metody výzkumu. Na konci teoretické části je stručný popis historického kontextu, do kterého je tato hra včleněna.

Praktickou část mé práce tvoří samotná analýza hry. Pro lepší přehlednost jsem začal výčtem postav objevujících se ve hře a jejich stručným popisem. Dále jsem se věnoval aspektům ovlivňujícím počátek války, analýze děje bojů ve Francii a úloze násilí a přátelství na celou hru. Součástí práce je i charakteristika postavy Jindřicha V.

Klíčová slova

Jindřich V, násilí, přátelství, literární analýza, Shakespeare

- 3 -

Annotation

This bachelor thesis analyses the play Henry V by William Shakespeare from the perspective of violence and friendship. These are themes often appearing in the play. The bachelor thesis consists of a theoretical and a practical part. In the theoretical part is described the plot of the play and the goals of the thesis are set here. Furthermore, the terms Violence and Friendship are characterised here, and the way how Renaissance drama dealt with violence is described, too. I have also set a hypothesis and defined the methods of research here. In the end of the theoretical part there is a brief description of the historical context the play is set in.

The practical part of my thesis consists of the analysis of the play. For better lucidity I have started with a list of the characters appearing in this play and their brief description. Then I have dealt with the aspects which determined the outbreak of the war, analysis of fighting in France and the role of violence and friendship in the whole play. A characteristics of Henry V is also a part of this work.

Key words

Henry V, violence, friendship, literary analysis, Shakespeare

- 4 -

Table of Contents

Anotace ...... - 3 - Klíčová slova ...... - 3 - Annotation ...... - 4 - Key words ...... - 4 - Table of Contents ...... - 5 - Introduction ...... - 7 - Part I – Theory ...... - 11 - 1. Aims of the work ...... - 11 - 2. Characterisation of violence ...... - 12 - 3. Characterisation of friendship ...... - 13 - 4. Violence in Renaissance drama ...... - 14 - 5. Hypothesis ...... - 16 - 6. Methods ...... - 17 - 7. Historical background of the play ...... - 18 - 7.1. The outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War ...... - 18 - 7.2. Edward III ...... - 18 - 7.3. Charles V ...... - 19 - 7.4. Henry IV ...... - 20 - 7.5. Henry V ...... - 20 - Part II ...... - 23 - 1. The list of characters ...... - 23 - 2. The outbreak of the campaign ...... - 25 - 2.1. The first chorus ...... - 25 - 2.2. Act 1 – The outbreak of the war ...... - 27 - 2.3. The incident with tennis balls ...... - 32 - 3. The siege of Harfleur ...... - 34 - 3.1. The siege ...... - 34 - 3.2. Absence of post-siege violence ...... - 38 - 4. The battle of Agincourt ...... - 41 - 4.2. St. Crispin Speech ...... - 44 -

- 5 -

4.3. Depiction of battle scenes ...... - 45 - 5. The character of Henry V ...... - 50 - 5.1. Youth and transition ...... - 50 - 5.2. Henry V after coronation ...... - 53 - 5.3. Henry V in France ...... - 54 - 6. Friendship in Henry V ...... - 56 - 6.1. Pistoll, Nym, and Bardolph ...... - 56 - 6.2. Scroope, Cambridge, Gray, and Henry V ...... - 60 - 7. Conclusion ...... - 65 - 8. Bibliography ...... - 67 -

- 6 -

Introduction

The life of Henry the Fifth, commonly known as Henry V, is a play written by English playwright William Shakespeare in 1599 (first folio1) and 1600 (first quarto2). It is the final part of Shakespeare’s tetralogy about the reign of the House of Lancaster over Britain, and his last English historical play. The preceding plays to this drama were Richard II, Henry IV, Part I, and Henry IV, Part II. Henry V, the main character, appears also in Henry IV, Part II as Prince Harry or Prince Hal. The whole tetralogy about the Lancaster reign is also called the Henriad, after the two most significant characters.

There have been several editions made between 1599 and 1623. Scholars (Walter, Humphreys) agree, that the original text is the first Folio3 text, which has been written in spring or summer of 15994 (Walter, 11), and other versions have been derived from this original text later on. According to the edition by Sir Israel Gollancz from 18955, the earliest edition of King Henry the Fifth is a quarto published in 1600, with the following title: “The Chronicle History of Henry the Fifth with his battel fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times played by the Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his servants. London Printed by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Milling ton, and Iohn Busby. And are to be sold at his house in Carter lane, next the Powle head. 1600.” But this “bad quarto” was later detected to be an illegal and pirated copy made by the actors who attempted to earn some extra money by emitting the text before Shakespeare. But, still, this copy is known as Q1 (First quarto). The First Quarto was followed by Q2 from 1602, Q3 from 1619, with the title page of 1608, and the First Folio (F1), which was emitted in 1623. The second and third quartos are edited versions of Q1. These versions provide evidence how the play

1 According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the First Folio is „first published edition (1623) of the collected works of William Shakespeare, originally published as Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories & Tragedies. It is the major source for contemporary texts of his plays.“ 2 According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, quarto is „printed on both sides of large sheets of paper with four printed pages on each side. When the sheet was folded twice and bound, it yielded eight printed pages to each „gathering.“ 3 The first folio is the primary text I am working with. 4 The evidence is in Act 5, Chorus, verses 30 – 32, these verses are a reference on Earl of Essex and his expedition to Ireland 5 Which I had the privilege to study in Moravská zemská knihovna. - 7 - changed throughout the time the Lord Chamberlain’s men, later known as the King’s men were playing it.

The first evidence of an onstage performance of this play comes from “7 January 1605, when the King’s Majesty players presented it at Court” (Walter, 12).

According to Gollancz, the main source of Shakespeare’s knowledge of historical contexts of the medieval times was the second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicles, published in 1587. However, Shakespeare was a playwright, so he took the advantage that he did not have to stick to the primary source, and he occasionally departed from Holinshed’s work to achieve greater dramatic effect. Shakespeare also borrowed certain passages from an anonymous play “The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth, which was written in 1594” (Humphreys, 8). These passages are for example: “a few touches in Act I, Scene ii.; the episode of Pistol and the French soldier ; the wooing scene, &c.” (Gollancz, 7). There had been several further adaptations of the story of Henry V before the Shakespeare’s, but their importance is not great and it is not clear whether Shakespeare drew from these works.

The play is set in England and France between approximately 1413 and 1422. The years correspond with the reign of historical character, King Henry V of England, a king of the House of Lancaster. He was the king of England during the Hundred Years’ War. This period was the climax of the war, and at the same time the last part in which the English were winning. The setting of the play starts in England, where Henry V prepares for an invasion to France. In England, Henry V reveals a conspiracy against him in which three of his friends took part. Then, the play moves to France, where King Henry’s army win two important battles – the siege of a port town of Harfleur, and the decisive victory in the battle of Agincourt, which was one of the most important battles of the entire Hundred Years’ War.

Henry V, who was known by the Shakespearean audience from the previous play, Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, became an adult monarch fully aware of his responsibilities. He as the King set himself an ambitious goal – to conquer the greatest enemy of England - France. Henry V, supported by many of his advisors, believed that he was the rightful heir to the French throne. His first victory was the conquest of Harfleur – a port in

- 8 -

Normandy. The siege begins with one of the best speeches of Henry V and one of best- known Shakespearean monologues: “Once more to the breech, dear friends”. After the successful, but exhausting siege of Harfleur, Henry V and his army went on a march to Calais, where they wanted to stay through the winter. But on the way there, the English were stopped by the French army near a village called Agincourt.

The night before the battle, Henry V wanders around the English camp in disguise to learn what his soldiers think of him, how they feel, and to boost their morale a bit.

The English were exhausted after the siege and the subsequent long march. They were also outnumbered five to one (according to the play) to the well-equipped, well- trained and well-rested French troops. But against all odds, they managed to win the battle in the most decisive way. According to Shakespeare’s processing of this history, one of the reasons of this almost miraculous victory was Henry V’s famous St. Chrispian Day speech, in which he addressed his men as “happy few” and “band of brothers”.

In the last act (act 5), which takes part five years6 after Agincourt, Henry V tries to propose Catherine of Valois, the daughter of the French King Charles VI. This is happening in Troyes, where the peace treaty was signed7. The fact that Henry V does not speak French and Catherine English develops some comical situations, and Henry V wins Catherine’s heart in the end.

Although the setting of this play is during the Hundred Years’ War, war and fighting is not the only main motive of the play. Among the most important motives in Henry V are loyalty, friendship, attachment, national pride, affection and love, decisiveness and the lack of it, life and death, the nature of good kingship, moral issues concerning qualities of a good king, tensions between the ideal and reality, heroism, knightly virtues, honour, ruthlessness, treachery, war crimes, and lust for power.

Loyalty and friendship, and the sense of attachment, are the motives I have decided to analyse as ‘Friendship’; bravery, ruthlessness, war, fighting, and war crimes

6 „Shakespeare omits the five years (1415-20) of campaigning between Agincourt and the Treaty of Troyes (as indeed he does everything in Henry’s reign which does not relate to Agincourt), and so gives his play a clearer course and greater impetus (Humphreys, 16). 7 The Treaty of Troyes was signed on 21 May 1420. The final agreement was that after the death of Charles VI of France, Henry and his children will inherit the French throne. - 9 - will be dealt as ‘Violence’. This ambivalence of the play’s motives and their constant blending together make this play very special compared to most other plays set in war time, and depictions of war and violence in any piece of art. Shakespeare’s Henry V is also a magnificent source of inspiration to the authors who were active since Shakespearean time until now. I have found multiple quotes from Henry V and allusions on the play in many movies and other forms of art concerning depictions of war so far.

In this thesis, I will deal with several topics, such as friendship between the characters, its effect on other characters; violence caused by the war and its importance to the characters and to the plot of the play. I will also deal with the way how violence affects the protagonists, and whether the use of violence is adequate in certain situations, or not. I want to analyse as many utterances of both entities as possible, from every probable point of view. The main focus will be on the character of Henry V, because he is the main character, and his actions have the greatest influence on the play.

In the first part of this work, I will try to define violence and friendship, examine the outlook on both in the Renaissance and now, and compare and contrast these outlooks. Then, I will set some critical questions concerning main characters and their attitudes to violence and friendship. In the end, I will add a brief historical background to Henry V’s French campaign and the Hundred Years’ War, and, finally, I will state my hypothesis.

The second part of my bachelor thesis will be the literary analysis, concerning analysis of violence and friendship throughout this play. There are multiple opinions on this play from the academic writers, so I will try to involve their analysis in my own work, compare, and contrast them with my opinions, and support these opinions with the primary text.

- 10 -

Part I – Theory

1. Aims of the work

This bachelor thesis is a literary analysis of violence and friendship in the play commonly known as Henry V by William Shakespeare. Its main goal is to answer several critical questions: Were Henry V and other major characters heroes, villains, or both? How were the characters seen in Shakespeare’s time and how can we see them from our, modern perspective? How friendship affected the characters of the play? And how it affected certain violent scenes?

To fulfil the aims of this work, I will define violence and friendship in the broadest way possible, and support these definitions with examples from the play and from everyday life. Then I will set some criteria according to which I will analyse the aspects of violence and friendship, analyse scenes depicting these subjects, and, finally, I will answer the questions which have arisen in the theoretical part.

Violence will be analysed with special concentration on the adequateness of its use, its effect on various characters and the plot itself, the reason why it is used in the particular situation, and the outcomes of either using or not using it.

Friendship will be analysed in terms of how deep the relationship between friends was, and how it affected the behaviour, especially violent behaviour, of the characters.

The extent of this thesis does not allow me to analyse all the characters appearing in this play, so I will focus only on the most prominent ones. The list of characters I will analyse is included at the beginning of the practical part of this thesis. The main interest will be made upon the character of Henry V, because he is the main character of this play, and his actions affect the play more than anyone else’s. The second reason why I want to focus on Henry V is, that there has been written much about his character – both in positive and negative way. I am determined to find out why he is such an ambiguous character. - 11 -

2. Characterisation of violence

In Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, violence is defined as: (1) “violent behaviour that is intended to hurt or kill somebody”, and (2) “physical or emotional force and energy”. These definitions, on one hand, offer a simple and understandable answer to the simple question: “What does violence mean?” but for the purpose of this analysis they are highly insufficient. In seeking for the question How to define violence, I turned to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. There are many definitions of violence8, from which I have chosen one that seems to me the most appropriate: “Violence can be defined as any interpersonal behaviour intended to cause physical harm or mental distress.” When we combine this definition with the second one taken from the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, we are nearing towards the definition I intend to find. Violence as I intend to analyse it, is “behaviour or energy that causes physical harm or mental distress”.

This definition of violence is very suitable for my purpose, because the play does not depict the war scenes it the content suitable for a proper analysis. On the other hand, the verbal violence is used masterfully in the play, mostly through speeches of Henry V to both his troops, and the enemy.

When we focus on the influence of a leader on his troops, Britannica offers us a term ‘Collective violence’. It is “…violent form of collective behaviour engaged in by large numbers of people responding to a common stimulus.” War belongs to organized forms of collective violence. According to Carl Von Clausewitz, who is referred as a ‘philosopher of war’, war is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will” (Orend). These definitions and their interconnectedness approve of the proposition that war and violence can, and even have to, be approached together.

As opposed to violence, I will operate with its counterpart, which I call non-violence. According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, non-violence is “the policy of using peaceful methods, not force, to bring about political or social change”. The occurrence

8 These definitions are only in the webpage, printed copy does not involve the entry ‚Violence‘. - 12 - of non-violence is a crucial part of my analysis, because it helps understand the psyche of characters (namely Henry V in Harfleur) from different point of view.

3. Characterisation of friendship

The web page Oxford Learners’ dictionaries offers two definitions of friendship: (1) “a relationship between friends”, and (2) “the feeling or relationship that friends have; the state of being friends”. This definition is also insufficient, but there is no entry in Britannica9, so I had to look up the definition of a friend. According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, friend is: (1) “a person you know well and like, and who is not usually a member of your family”, (2) a person who has the same interests and opinions as yourself, and who will help and support you”. From these definitions which I combined, I derived a definition of friendship as ‘a relationship between persons who know one another well, have the same interests and opinions, and help and support one another’.

For the purpose of my analysis, all three aspects of friendship are important. But, on the other hand, it is rare to encounter all three of them altogether in the play. The lack of one or more aspects produces dramatic parts of the play, such as Bardolph’s, Pistoll’s and Nym’s betrayal of their countrymen when they were hiding instead of charging with the others. In the analysis, I will focus also on the consequence of betrayal of friendship in general and the way how Shakespeare dealt with it (as in the Southampton plot).

9 Unfortunately, neither printed book, nor webpage offers this entry. - 13 -

4. Violence in Renaissance drama

The main classical sources of plays dealing with the theme of violence were plays that were “inspired by the Trojan War by Homer (Iliad, Odyssey) and Virgil (The Aeneid), tales of Ovid (Metamorphoses, which influenced Shakespeare, Chaucer or Marlowe), and the revenge plays of Seneca (Agamemnon, Oedipus)” (Foakes 111). Most of these plays are of Greek origin, because the Greek tragedy tradition is excessively larger than Roman in both the number of the plays and their significance. Because of the Roman lifestyle and their ways of entertainment, Roman theatres presented almost exclusively comedies. In Rome, when the audience wanted to experience violence, they could visit arenas and see the natural, non-artificial and explicit fighting.

Another major source of violence in Renaissance was, quite surprisingly, the Bible. The Christian holy book is filled with violent scenes from its very beginning. The first fable in which rage and violence take major part is the story of Adam and Eve. God punishes the humankind by expulsion from the Eden. This act of violence, of which the agent is God himself, initiates a long and violent history of humankind. The history continues in the fable of Cain and Abel10, Satan’s rampage in the Book of Job, the Great Flood, and so on. An important story in which violence is used as a threat is the story of Abraham, who was commanded to sacrifice his only son, Isaac.

Another violent feature of Christianity lies in the moment when it was established as a new religion, which is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As Foakes says: “Christianity begins in the execution of Christ, who ‘appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9.26), and whose blood was shed for many for the remission of sins” (Foakes 110). But Jesus Christ is not the only figure who experienced a violent end of his days. The history of Christianity is full of examples of various martyrs and very explicit depictions of their ends. In the middle Ages and Renaissance, artists were literally haunted by these scenes and they produced extensive numbers of depictions of violence in various forms. This obsession of medieval artists and priests in violence is clearly

10 The story of Cain and Abel is for example related to the killing of old Hamlet by his brother Claudius (Foakes 111). - 14 - visible in highlighting of one of the latest inventions of the Bible and Christian church – an idea that was developed in the New Testament – the institution of Hell. This idea “gave scope to the imaginations of artists and writers to invent horrific images of the tortures of the damned in hell, and to imagine Heaven as a place of peace high above this world (Mathew 5.22)” (Foakes 110).

The most common English translations of Bible in Shakespearean time were the Geneva Bible, which was introduced in 1560, and the Bishop’s Bible from 1568. The fact that in the time of staging of the play it had been only thirty nine and thirty one years respectively since the introduction of these Bibles is very important, because it shows that for most of Shakespeare’s audience “reading Bible was a relatively new experience” (Foakes 111).

From this list of sources it is obvious that Shakespeare, as well as the other Renaissance artists, had an extensive body of materials dealing with violence from which they could stem. Even though the Greek and Roman drama is based on a clash between man and the polytheistic pantheon, the plays of Homer, Virgil and other classical playwrights could be used as source of inspiration in Christian culture, too. Shakespeare, for example, based his Commedy of Errors on Menaechmi by Plautus. But it was the Italian artists who started to stem from the classical Greek and Roman art. Namely, it was Dante Alighieri, who brought the ancient classics such as Virgil, Cicero, and Ovid back to the top of popularity in the medieval times with his Comedia11, and Giovanni Boccaccio, who’s Decameron influenced European Renaissance, too.

11 Popularly known as Divine Comedy. The attribute ‚Divine‘ was coined by Giovanni Boccaccio thirty five years after its first release. - 15 -

5. Hypothesis

The play is set into one of the most complicated times of the history of England. The explanations of its protagonists’ motives is therefore difficult, but not impossible. There have been many essays and monographs written about the character of Henry V, either from historical, or from dramatic point of view. In this respect, Shakespeare’s play has a very significant role, because its depiction of Henry V is so powerful that it affected popular view on the historical character.

In my thesis I will analyse the character of Henry V as Shakespeare interpreted it. Henry is described as an ideal Christian king on one side, but as a ruthless Machiavellian leader on the other side. From this perspective, Henry V is not violent as a person, but violence is for him only means how to achieve his goals. He strictly separates his feelings and his mission, which is conquering France and creating one great state united under his reign. Violence is therefore only a necessary evil which would eventually serve the greater good.

In times of war, strong bonds (friendship) between soldiers emerge. Such bonds are present in Henry V, too. But for the purpose of victory, an individual sometimes has to crucify friendship. This is also a trait of Henry V, who has to make multiple difficult decisions concerning this matter. Henry V always decides to stick to his duty and crucify friendship.

To sum up, I find Henry good king, which is unfortunately not always in accord with being good man and will try to prove this statement.

- 16 -

6. Methods

In this thesis, I will use both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the practical part, a particular feature of the play will be observed in detail from various points of view. I will especially focus on their attitude towards violence and friendship throughout the play and the motivation, accomplishment, and outcomes of their deeds that are significant for the play. For this analysis I will use the qualitative method.

The quantitative method will be instrumental for the qualitative analysis. I will observe the play and search for certain phenomena, measure their density in certain passages, and conclude their importance in given situation according to the density. These data will offer concrete support for my reasoning and analysis.

- 17 -

7. Historical background of the play

7.1. The outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

The Hundred Years’ War is a series of conflicts between England and France that was being waged between 1337 and 1453. The origin of the war is a great economic, demographic, and social crisis that occurred in the whole Europe of 14th century. This crisis was connected to tense between English and French kings, who struggled to control the territories of Guyenne, which is nowadays in south-western France, Flanders (today’s Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium), and Scotland. Another important reason of the crisis is plague that decimated the whole Europe at that time. The year 1337 is the official outbreak, but the origins of the conflict go down deep into 12th century, when the English noblemen claimed their feud on the soil of France. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

The English kings were, by medieval law, vassals to the French kings. This state of affairs begun in 1066, after William of Normandy (better known as William the Conqueror) won the English throne at the Battle of Hastings over English king Harrold II.

7.2. Edward III

After the death of the French king Charles IV (1328), who was sonless, Edward III, king of England, considered himself a legitimate heir to the French throne. His mother was Charles’s sister. But there was a noticeable problem that did not allow Edward to become the king of France. There was another claimant – the Count of Valois, who was the grandson of Charles IV. The French nobility chose latter Philip VI their new king and Edward accepted it (Sumption 106). Edward remained the Duke of Guyenne and Count of Ponthieu.

In 1337, Philip VI with his son John (latter John II) moved his army towards Guyenne, because he was afraid of English soldiers in France. Edward reacted on this move by - 18 - bringing his army into Flanders and reclaimed his right of the French throne. After decisive victories in Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), where King John was captured by Edward’s son Edward, called The Black Prince, the treaty of Calais (1360) was declared. In the treaty, Edward was given full sovereignty over Guyenne and Ponthieu.

7.3. Charles V

The second phase of Hundred Years’ War started in 1364 when John II’s son Charles V was crowned. He skilfully gained new wealth, established a new army, and until his death in 1380 he regained almost the entire territory lost to the English during his predecessors’ reigns. In this period, Edward III’s fifty-year-long successful reign ended by his death in 1377. His successor was his grandson Richard II who was crowned at the age of ten12. In the first years of his reign, the land was governed by a series of councils. In his age of 30, the government was taken over by a body of aristocrats. It took Richard 2 years to gain his power, and for another 8 years he ruled the country in a relative harmony with his nobility. But in 1397, Richard’s mind changed. He had many of his noblemen arrested, especially those who had had significant role in his councils. Among them, there were dukes of Gloucester, Warwick, and Arundel, who are also depicted in Shakespeare’s plays. This period lasted only two years and is called “Richard’s terror”. In 1399, Richard was overthrown by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, the earl of Derby, who invaded England because Richard neglected his inheritance rights to the duchy of Lancaster. In fact, the invasion was seen by English nobility as an opportunity to liberate country from Richard’s tyranny. So once Henry landed on English soil on 4th of July 1399, many supported him and joined his side. In October, Henry was crowned king, despite a number of legal obstacles, and established a new dynasty – the House of Lancaster. But in a short time, problems emerged. In the first place, it has been unprecedented to exchange one king for another only because of decision of parliament and many were not happy with it. Then, there were more legitimate heirs to English

12 Edward the Black Prince, his eldest son, died before his father and thus became the first Prince of Wales who did not become King of England. Edward the Black Prince was also the first Knight of the Garter – the highest order of chivalry. - 19 - throne. But, accusing Richard of “perjuries, sacrileges, unnatural crimes, exactions from his subjects, reduction of his people to slavery, cowardice, and weakness of rule” (Smith 7), English nobility managed to crown Henry Bolingbroke as Henry IV. Richard became Sir Richard of Bordeaux, a simple knight. But within five months he was conveniently helped to a “natural” death.

7.4. Henry IV

Henry IV is the first king of a new dynasty – the House of Lancaster. His reign was accompanied with a series of problems. Since he was more or less usurper to the throne, many noblemen rejected the idea of obeying someone without the authority of royal blood. On the other side, his supporters demanded some rewards for their service. This state of affairs led into economic problems. Henry had to borrow large sums of money to sustain the kingdom serviceable. The income from Henry’s possession was not sufficient, so he borrowed from rich barons whose influence grew. Gradually, a body of barons began to doubt the decision of replacing young and unstable Richard by a 42- year-old Henry, a veteran skilled in war and government. Especially in Northumberland, the tensions to overthrow Henry were vast. As a consequence, a civil war occurred and it took Henry two years to overcome this crisis. Fourteen years of troublesome reign lead into health problems. His contemporaries saw it as God’s punishment for usurping the throne. Henry IV, the founder of a new dynasty, died in 1413, aged 45.

7.5. Henry V

After Henry IV’s death, a wind of change came into England. His son, a twenty- five-year old Henry V, was young, lively, dynamic, experienced soldier, but overambitious, bigoted, and domineering. It is still a matter of debate when exactly Henry was born. As he was not expected to be an heir to the throne, no official record of his birth has been made. The only thing we know is the place of Henry’s birth. It was

- 20 - the Monmouth castle in southeast of Wales. His youth is associated with irresponsible behaviour, lively spirit and adventurous escapades13. During his father’s exile, young Henry was a part of King Richard’s court. Richard treated him kindly, so he developed a nice relationship towards him. When Henry IV overthrew the throne, young Harry (as he was called) was in Scotland. From there, he was called upon his father’s court to become Prince of Wales. After the death of Henry IV, young Harry was anxious to prove himself a man14. So he broke out a new phase of the Hundred Years’ War – the one that should win the English the French crown. The English had a great advantage, because after Charles V died, his young son Charles VI became the king. As Smith wrote: “In 1380 the death of the able Charles V and the succession of the eleven-year-old Charles VI exposed France to a combination of minority government and monarchy crippled by a sovereign who passed from adolescence into imbecility” (Smith 14).

When Charles went mad in 1392, a fight for succession among his relatives begun. A civil war divided France and weakened it so much that Henry could revive the old Plantagenet claim on the throne. There is doubt if he had the legal right to do so, but legality can in some situations be only a question of interpretation, so there was no obstacle to invade France. Henry sailed from Southampton to Harfleur – a French fortification and port. Successful siege of Harfleur convinced Henry of French military weakness, so after he succeeded there, he decided to move to his winter quarters in Calais, which was English town these days. He marched across the French countryside, with 2000 mounted men-at-arms, 6000 archers (half of them were mounted, too), 1000 men in Henry’s headquarters company, and 3 siege cannons. In Agincourt, this small army met the French body of approximately 50 000 men. On St. Crispin’s day, 25 October 1415, Henry led his exhausted and malnourished men into battle which ended in a decisive victory over the French. It is estimated that the French lost 1500 knights and 5000 men-at-arms. The English, on the other side, lost less than 300 men and 7 knights15. Among the casualties, there were duke of York and earl of Suffolk.

13 The youth of Henry V is depicted in detail in Shakespeare’s plays Henry IV, Part 1, and Part 2 14 Smith, 13 15 Here Shakespeare exaggerates the English victory – in the play the English lost only 29 men (Foakes 104) - 21 -

After the battle of Agincourt, a treaty between France and England was signed. In the treaty, Henry V was declared rightful heir to the French throne after the death of Charles VI. This was supported by a royal wedding – Henry married Charles’s daughter Catherine of Valois and thus became heir apparent to the throne. In the exchange, Henry was bound to protect France with his troops.

The last two years of his reign and life, Henry campaigned in France where he sieged cities that refused to support him as the successor to the French throne. He died on 31 August 1422 at the age of 35. Charles VI died only two months after Henry, so Henry’s dream of becoming King of France has not came true. His son, Henry VI, was a baby and English barons and nobility took the advantage of it. England could not keep the land Henry won in France and, with a help of Joan of Arc, the French reconquered most of their former land.

- 22 -

Part II

1. The list of characters

King Henry V

Duke of Gloucester, Henry’s youngest brother

Duke of Bedford, Henry’s brother

Duke of Clarence, Henry’s brother

Duke of Exeter, Henry’s uncle, among all in charge of delivering Henry’s messages to the French

Duke of York, Henry’s cousin who dies in the battle of Agincourt

Earl of Salisbury, Earl of Huntingdon, Earl of Warwick, English noblemen

Earl of Westmorland, Henry’s cousin

Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop of Elly, representatives of church

Richard Earl of Cambridge, Henry Lord Scroop of Masham, Sir Thomas Grey – conspirators against the king

Sir Thomas Erpingham, an experienced officer in Henry’s army

Captain Fluellen, Captain Gower, Captain Jamy, Captain MacMorris, officers of Henry’s army, representatives of Wales, England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively

John Bates, Alexander Court, Michael Williams – soldiers in Henry’s army

Bardolph, Nym, Pistoll, three scoundrels, former servants to Sir John Falstaff

Boy, former page of Sir John Falstaff

Hostess Quickly, Nym’s ex-fiancée, Pistol’s wife

Charles VI, the King of France

- 23 -

Lewis, the Dauphin, heir to French throne16

Dukes of Burgundy, Orleans, Britaine, Bourbon

Charles Delabreth, the Constable of France

The governor of Harfleur

Montjoy, the French Herald

Ambassadors to the King of England

Isabel, Queen of France

Katherine, the daughter of Charles VI and Isabel

16 In Folio, Shakespeare calls him Dolphin. - 24 -

2. The outbreak of the campaign

2.1. The first chorus

O For a Muse of Fire, that would ascend

The brightest Heauen of Inuention:

A kingdom for a Stage, Princes to Act,

And Monarchs to behold the swelling Scene.

Then should the Warlike Harry, like himselfe,

Assume the Port of Mars, and at his heeles

Leasht in, like Hounds should Famine, Sword, and Fire

Crouch for employment…

(Act 1, Prologue, Verses 1-8)

These are the initial verses of the play. From these, we can learn the most important facts about the play. The first four verses simply imply that the stage is not big enough17 to embrace the whole kingdoms and kings, so it is a matter of imagination (the Muse of Fire18) to see the great kings and princes, and vast fields of France in which the major part of the play is set in.

The Warlike Harry19 who is going to invade France (assume the Port of Mars20) is depicted as a valiant king resembling Mars himself. On the other hand, his militant

17 The fact that the stage is too small to present battle scenes, with other practical impediments, unable the author to depict the battle scenes on stage. For this purpose, the ‘character’ of chorus has been developed and used. Chorus plays therefore a very significant role in the play, especially for the purpose of depicting war scenes. 18 According to Warburton, it is a reference to “Peripatetic system of several heavens one above another; the last and highest of which was the one of fire” (Warburton 199). On the other hand, Walter explains the ‘Muse of Fire’ as an association to the poets. Fire was believed to be “the lightest of the four elements composing man (Walter 5)” and it was the source of poets’ wit. These explanations eliminate one possible conclusion one would make, that fire refers to war and violence. 19 Henry V 20 Mars was the Roman god of war, so this verse is an allusion on war. - 25 - course invokes the Dogs of War21 – Famine, Sword, and Fire. This is the first depiction of Harry and violence together. The fact that Shakespeare mentions Henry and violence twice in the initial verses (Warlike Harry; Assume the Port of Mars, and at his heeles Leasht in, like Hounds should Famine, Sword, and Fire Crouch for employment) is not an accident – Shakespeare emphasises the interconnection between Harry and violence. The character of Henry V has always been connected to violence and warfare – in fact, it was him who revived the Hundred Years’ War, who invaded France, who fought the battle of Agincourt, who slaughtered the French nobility... So the remark of Henry and war in the very beginning is instrumental to allure the audience, who expect spectacular scenes of the victory of English common soldiers over the proud French knights in shiny metal armour riding their thoroughbred horses.

The Prologue continues with the description of the setting, which is mostly on the Vast fields of France where ‘Two mightie Monarchies divided by Perilous narrow Ocean parts22’ fight.

To sum up, Henry V is depicted as a warlike king since the beginning, and the role of violence is presented as crucial in the whole play. Friendship has no great significance in the initial prologue.

21 The phrase “Dogs of war” is used also in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (Act 3, Scene 1, Verse 273). Dogs were trained in Rome for military purposes and used as living weapons. There is a good deal of evidence that the breed the Romans trained was Mastiff. Mastiffs also appear in the play (Act 3, Scene 7, Verses 141 – 142) as an example of English courage. 22 The English Channel - 26 -

2.2. Act 1 – The outbreak of the war

The first act begins with two bishops talking about a threat which menaces their interests in England. Henry IV had written a bill that would transfer approximately a half of wealth of the church to the crown. This bill would mean very significant loss of power and influence of the church, which the two bishops fear very much. Henry V wants to run this bill, so the threat is becoming very actual. But the bishop of Canterbury has developed a cunning plan how to overcome this crisis and gain even greater power. He had proposed Henry V a support for invading France, England’s greatest enemy. As a matter of fact, the significance of church in the outbreak of the French campaign of Henry V is greater than it may seem. Foakes, for example, offers a thorough analysis of church and its influence on this play: “In previous history plays Church and State were shown in opposition, in the characters of the Archbishop of York in Henry IV, the Bishop of Carlisle in Richard II, and Cardinal Pandulph in King John, but Henry V opens with bishops providing funding for and defending monarch who can ‘reason in divinity” (Foakes 97). This change of relationships between clergy and crown in Shakespeare’s histories has multiple reasons. Firstly, the bishops’ support would persuade Henry V not to run the bill against the church. Secondly, Canterbury’s explanation of the Salic law23 (the ‘Law Salike’, as it is referred to in the play24), is a demonstration of Henry V’s claim to the French throne and a clarification of justness of his cause. These are powerful dramatic emphatic devices that support the fact that the English are in the right. Finally, the support of the church makes the character of Henry V ‘the mirror of Christian kings’ (Chorus, Act 2), providing him God’s support and protection throughout the play.

Canterbury’s argument for the invasion is simple – Henry V s the rightful heir to the French throne. The nature of the claim of Henry V comes from his ancestors – his great-grandfather Edward III conquered France in the first period of the Hundred Years’

23 The Salic law was an ancient legal code that excluded women from inheritance to the throne. The French king Charles VI used it as a precedent against the claim of Henry V to the French throne. In his rather lengthy and boring speech in the council, the bishop of Canterbury undermines the Salic law and calls the claim of Charles VI to the French throne into question. As his evidence, Canterbury uses the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer – two most prominent Christian books of that time. 24 Act 1, Scene 2, Verse 11 - 27 -

War and Henry V is the closest heritor of his. The long and boring examination of the Salic law25 offers the audience multiple evidence of justness of King Henry’s claim and even divine support of his cause (the Salic law is in conflict with the Bible). This is very important for the whole play, because the prerequisite that English claims in France are rightful is a motive repeatedly recurrent throughout the whole play.

The answer of Henry V to Canterbury’s long and complicated monologue is, on the other hand, very simple. Henry V asks: ‘May I with right and conscience make this claim?’26 The purpose of simplification of the dialogue is evident – the audience could have got lost in Canterbury’s exploring monologue, so these verses are supposed to sum it up. Canterbury replies in a way as if he cheered Henry to attack. First, he accepts the whole responsibility for the campaign: ‘The Sinne vpon my head, Dread Soueraigne…’27, and then he encourages Henry V to decide to attack, reminding him of his famous ancestors:

Stand for your owne, vnwind your bloody Flagge,

Looke back into your mightie Ancestors:

Goe my dread Lord, to your great Grandsires Tombe,

From whom you clayme; inuoke his Warlike Spirit,

And your Great Vncles, Edward the Black Prince…

(Act 1, Scene 2, Verses 101 – 105)

The ancestors Canterbury mentioned are Edward III28, Henry V’s great- grandfather and Edward the Black Prince29, Henry’s granduncle. These two mighty ancestors of Henry V beat the French in the battles of Cressy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356 and made England European medieval superpower. The importance of these lines is very

25 Act1, Scene 2, Verses 33 – 95 - the whole monologue contains of sixty two verses, all of which are focused on either history of the law, or its legal consequences. 26 Act 1, Scene 2, Verse 96 27 Act 1, Scene 2, Verse 97 28 Edward III declared himself heir to the French throne, which initiated the Hundred Years‘ War. 29 Edward of Woodstock, known as ‚the Black Prince‘, was the eldest son of Edward III and one of the most successful military leaders of his time. But, because of his father’s long reign (which lasted for fifty years), he did not become king – he died before his father and thus became the first Prince of Wales who has not become the King. - 28 - significant: Not only it encourages Henry V to attack France, but it also introduces him a powerful device how to persuade his men to fight, even against great odds. The motive of reminder of the great ancestors can be seen both at the gates of Harfleur, and before the battle of Agincourt.

The evidence that the church is one of the forces that support the war has been given, but now it is time to analyse King Henry’s role in the outbreak of the war. We have to take into consideration that Henry V was eager to invade France even before the bishop of Canterbury offered him both legal and material support. King Henry’s position was unstable. Even hiss claim to the English throne was uncertain – his father Henry IV (Henry Bolingbroke) took the crown by force from Richard II, so Henry V’s right to possess the crown was questionable. For this reason, Henry V reburied Richard’s remains hoping to reconcile with Richard’s supporters. This move proved that Henry V was better than his father and many started to respect him. But England had much more troubles than the legacy of Richard II and Henry IV. Since the time of Edward III there had been a war between England and the coalition of France and Scotland, which threatened the English. This is also mentioned in the play, Henry V is aware of this fact when planning the invasion several times, for example:

We must not only arme t’ inuade the French,

But lay downe our proportions, to defend

Against the Scot, who will make roade upon vs,

With all aduantages.

(Act 1, Scene 2, Verses 136 – 139)

For this purpose, the English forces shall be divided into two groups – one fourth of English troops shall go with Henry V to France, and the rest would protect England against further dangers. This explains why there are so few men with Henry V in France and why they have to face such great odds at Agincourt. Those three quarters of English

- 29 - army are also the men Westmoreland lacks in the battlefield before King Henry’s St. Crispin Day speech30.

The bishop of Elly then shows a great deal of hypocrisy, when he compares the English invading France to eagles on their hunt, but a possible subsequent Scottish attack upon England is described as an act of weasels who would steal eggs from the unwatched nest. In his Introduction to Henry V, Humphreys describes this episode as an evidence of ‘double-think’, but admits that it is a common phenomenon in popular politics31. The hypocrisy of such description of two armies invading foreign territory is obvious – both English and Scottish invasion are in fact the same. The only difference is the nationality of the aggressor – it is either ‘Scottish weasel’, or ‘English eagle’, but in fact it does not matter in the end. The same case of hypocrisy is shown in Agincourt, when the English ‘gallant king’ ordered to slaughter French prisoners while French ‘knavery’ resulted in killing English boys who were guarding their camp.

All these speeches underwrite the patriotic outcome of the play. The play is “concerned with moral vindications of national interest and policy, and so undertakes to explain and to justify all that is done in the nation’s name (Humphreys 31)”. And in the state of war, there are only two sides – ‘us’ and ‘them’. This antagonism is depicted in the play for example by using attributes such as ‘barbarous’ to the enemy and ‘noblish’ to the ‘us’.

The last reason why Henry V had to invade France was perhaps the most important one – the war would unite the nation, raise its patriotism and feeling of unity - a unity of barons, lords, commoners, but also of the church and the strong king who has unified the whole nation. The spirit of this united nation which is preparing systematically for the war is depicted in the second chorus:

Now all the Youth of England are on fire,

And silken Dalliance in the Wardrobe lyes:

30 Act 4, Scene 3, Verses 16 – 18 31 Humphreys 30 - 30 -

Now thriue the Armorers, and Honors thought

Reignes solely in the breast of euery man.

They sell the Pasture now, to buy the horse;

Following the Mirror of the Christian Kings…

(Act 2, Chorus, Verses 1 – 6)

The whole chorus is filled with cheerful description of English unity before the campaign. The age of ‘silken dalliance32’ is gone and there is the preparation to the war going on all over England33. Armorers prosper more than ever, common men sell their land so that they could afford a horse34 which would carry them in France, every man thinks about honour and another virtues of a man and soldier, and admire their king – the Mirror of the Christian kings35.

As a matter of fact, wars in the Medieval Age were seen as an opportunity for common young men to get rich. Henry V has established a professional army36 which was funded by the king and his captains. The captains were noblemen who could afford to hire soldiers and form battalions. Another way how to get rich was looting and pillage. Even though it was banned by the king, it still had been a common way for the ordinary soldiers how to get some extra money. The issues connected to this practice are dealt in this play in the character of Bardolph.

As it is said in this chapter, Henry V in the beginning of this play is an ideal king concerned with his responsibilities. The main influence on his vicious campaign in France and the responsibility for all the violence therefore has the church, who defended their interests instead of taking care of what is and is not moral. On the other hand, since the

32 Peaceful playfulness, idleness in the period of peace. 33 In this case, the play is in agreement with history. The preparations for the war were indeed nationwide. For example, there was a King’s order that every English goose has to ‚donate‘ three feathers for arrow manufacture. 34 The English had the first professional army. In that army, every soldier was payed according to his equipment and rank. Mounted units were payed more than foot soldiers, so the investment on a horse would pay off, especially in case of long or very successful campaign. 35 Cf. Act 1, Chorus, Verse 6 36 The concept of a professional army was innovative in medieval times, as opposed to traditional feudal system used by the French. - 31 - first act Henry’s role in the whole campaign becomes significant and his involvement in the violent war is significant, too.

2.3. The incident with tennis balls

King Henry, apart from the reasons stated above, had one special excuse for invading France. In Act 1, Scene 2, the French ambassador comes to Henry V with a present the Dolphin of France sent to him. It is a box of tennis balls – a reminder of King Henry’s misspent youth, therefore a clear insult to King Henry’s person. Henry V is outraged with this mock and starts to threat the ambassador:

We are glad the Dolphin is so pleasant with vs,

His Present, and your paines we thanke you for:

When we haue matcht our Rackets to these Balles,

We will in France (by Gods grace) play a set,

Shall strike his fathers Crowne into the hazard.

(Act 1, Scene 2, Verses 259 – 263)

The set Henry V intends to play with the Dolphin in France is a reference to the war which is about to break out there. Henry V threatens the Dolphin that “this Mocke of his” will be rewarded accordingly – Henry V will conquer the whole France and take the French crown.

But I will rise there with so full a glorie,

That I will dazzle all the eyes of France,

Yea strike the Dolphin blinde to looke on vs,

And tell the pleasant Prince, this Mocke of his

Hath turn’d his balles to Gun-stones, and his soule

Shall stand sore charged, for the wasteful vengeance - 32 -

That shall flye with them: for many a thousand widows

Shall this his Mocke, mocke out of their deer husbands;

Mocke mothers from their sonnes, mock Castles downe:

And some are yet vngotten and vnborne,

That shall haue cause to curse the Dolphins scorne.

(Act 1, Scene 2, Verses 278 – 288)

In this threatening monologue, Henry V unleashed his anger for the first time in the whole play. The tennis balls made him furious and in his anger he swore the worst revenge one could possibly imagine. Henry V asserted that he would invade France in a manner that the whole country would shiver with fear - he would kill thousands of men37 and destroy many castles with his guns38. This is an evidence of King Henry’s violent character, which is easy to be provoked into rage.

But Henry V blames the Dolphin for the bloodshed, because it was his mock that caused the violence. This part of the play does not seem to depict the ‘Mirror of the Christian kings’ from the Chorus of the second act. On the contrary, Shakespeare here depicts a man, a young man who can be easily provoked into violence. Another explanation of King Henry’s fit of anger here is based on an opinion that Henry V is a hypocrite. There have been much written about King Henry’s hypocrisy, for example by Humphreys, Foakes, and Camerlingo.

This case, or evidence of hypocrisy, is very easy to explain. Henry V decided to attack France even before the French ambassador came. So how could he blame the Dolphin for the war? The only reason why he did it was his hypocritical refusal of responsibility for the horrors of war he was about to revive and all the violence connected to the invasion. The only practical effect of the Tennis-ball scene to the play was that it hastened the preparations and affirmed King Henry’s determination to invade France39.

37 Sons, husbands, and fathers – see verses 284 – 288 38 By guns Shakespeare meant bombards – the first siege cannons introduced to Europe. 39 Act 1, Scene 2, Verses 300 – 310 - 33 -

In the scene with tennis balls, the hypocrisy of Henry V becomes the main theme. Not only Henry gets angry about the present the Dolphin of France gave him, but Henry V even accused the Dolphin from initialising the whole conflict.

3. The siege of Harfleur

3.1. The siege

In Act 3, the scene moves into France. In France, Harry’s fleet stroke the ground in the port of Harfleur. The siege of Harfleur is the first battle scene of the play. In the beginning, Henry V leads his troops onto the city walls:

Once more unto the breach,

Deare friends, once more;

Or close the Wall vp with our English dead…

(Act 3, Scene 1, Verses 1-3)

Saying these verses, Harry is determined to either win the city, or die in an attempt to. This speech, along with other King Henry’s discourses to his troops, show King Henry’s focus on his goals, commitment to responsibilities, and relentlessness. On the other hand, it is also a very ruthless command. This ambivalence between friendship (or, at least calling his troops ‘friends’), and ruthlessness in giving orders, is a very significant trait of the character of Henry V. The initial words ‘Once more’ imply that the siege was long and exhausting40, but Henry V still insists on another charge. And since he is a very good orator, the speech cheered his men up. Henry V legitimised violence as a means of gaining a goal, and in fact said that violence can be prosperous for humble people, too.

In Peace there’s nothing so becomes a man,

40 In fact, the invasion lasted one month. - 34 -

As modest stilnesse, and humilitie:

But when the Blast of Warre blowes in our eares,

Then imitate the action of the Tyger:

Stiffen the sinews, commune up the blood,

Disguise faire Nature with hard-fauour’d Rage…

(Act 3, Scene 1, Verses 5-8)

King Henry, who presents himself as a modest person, cheered his troops to act as aggressive as possible (to imitate the action of the tiger) – or in other words, to become as violent as possible. The comparison of two maxims of human behaviour – humility and aggression, or violence, impart this command a sign of morally acceptable thing. Henry V in fact says that it is honourable and right to be as violent as possible, because in the state of war a good soldier and subject to the king must do so. He suggests that the men are good and fair, but in this case they must disguise these qualities with rage.

Another strategy how to cheer his troops is a reminder of their ancestors. The role of ancestry is very significant in the whole play. Henry V compares himself to his uncle Edward the Black Prince, who had defeated the French at Poitiers 50 years before Agincourt, and King Henry’s grandfather Edward III, who had fought the decisive victory of the English at Cressy 60 years before Agincourt. This heritage of the victorious campaigns is often reminded to the English troops, for example in Harfleur:

…On, on you Noblish English,

Whose blood is fet from fathers of Warre-proofe:

Fathers, like so many Alexandres,

Haue in these parts from Morne till Euen fought,

And sheath’d their Swords, for lack of argument.

- 35 -

Dishonour your Mothers: now attest,

That those whom you call’d Fathers, did beget you.

(Act 3, Scene 1, Verses 17-23)

In fact, King Henry’s speech appeals on his men’s honour – the slight implication that cowardice may be a proof that they are not sons of their fathers is sufficient enough to make the men charge again and again.

The verse ‘Haue in these parts from Morne till Euen fought’ is a direct reference to Cressy and Poitiers, where the English fought from the morning (Morne) to the evening (Euen), especially to Crecy which is even geographically close to Agincourt. It is obvious that the legacy of these battles is important for both Henry V and his troops. The whole monologue ends with patriotic ‘Follow your Spirit, and vpon this Charge, Cry, God for Harry, England, and Saint George.’ St. George is the patron of England, so the battle cry implies that the soldiers fight for England, not just for the king.

To sum up, King Henry’s rhetorical abilities influenced violent behaviour of his men in the siege. Henry King managed to cheer his troops in this difficult and exhausting time and eventually won the city. Violence in the gates of Harfleur is a means to fulfil the military goal, which is in the time of a just war justifiable.

In Act 3, Scene 3, the King meets the governor of Harfleur who wants to discuss a parley. The French Dolphin did not send Harfleur reinforcements they had asked him for, so the Governor did not have any chance to maintain the town. Henry V, who knows that his position is strong, threatened the Governor:

This s the last parle we will admit:

Therefore to our best mercy giue your selues,

Or like to men prowd of destruction,

Defievs to our worst: for I am a Souldier

(Act 3, Scene 3, Verses 2 – 5)

This is the last chance to save lives of the citizens of the town, otherwise:

- 36 -

I will not leaue the halfe-atchiueued Harflew,

Till in her ashes she lye buryed.

The Gates of Mercy shall be all shut vp,

And the flesh’d Souldier, rough and hard of heart,

In libertie of bloody hand, shall raunge

With Conscience wide as hell, mowing like Grasse

Your fresh faire Virgins, and your flowring Infants.

(Act 3, Scene 3, Verses 8 – 14)

Here Henry V admits that it is not his concern what would eventually happen if Harfleur would not surrender. This must have been exaggeration, because Henry V as a strong leader had the power to prevent his men from killing ‘fresh faire Virgins and flowring Infants’. But as a threat, it is very powerful speech, and the Governor, forcing these prospects, had to feel absolutely vulnerable.

But Henry V does not stop here and continues in his speech in a rather monstrous way, systematically threatening the governor:

What is’t to me, when you your selues are cause,

If your pure Maydens fall into the hand

Of hot and forcing Violation?

What Reyne can hold licentious Wickidnesse,

When down the Hill he holds his fierce Carriere41?

(Act 3, Scene 3, Verses 19 – 23)

In this section, Henry V stops being the “Mirror of Christian Kings” and shows his dark side – hypocrisy, anger, and villainy. Hypocrisy is shown in what Humphreys calls “conviction that the guilt of bloodshed lies on the French for resisting his claim and not

41 The term ‚fierce Carriere‘ refers to King Henry’s soldiering career. - 37 - on him for prosecuting it” (Humphreys 15). Henry V denies responsibility for his troops and violence the English would use if Harfleur would not surrender, and blames the French for it.

The final part of King Henry’s monologue underlines the mood in which the whole speech is presented:

What say you? Will you yield, and this auoyd?

Or guiltie in defence, be thus destroy’d.

(Act 3, Scene 3, Verses 43 – 44)

French chances were so weak that the Governor did not have any chance but yield the town to the English. And, again, Henry V disposed of any responsibility for violence in case Harfleur would continue with defence.

In this chapter I have analysed rhetorical qualities of Henry V and his use of them. He uses his brilliant speeches both to cheer his men up, and to threaten his enemies. The goal-orientation of such behaviour is obvious. Henry V in his speeches both defends the use of violence for his purposes and uses it as a powerful tool against his enemies.

3.2. Absence of post-siege violence

After the English won the town, Henry V appointed Duke of Exeter in charge of capturing the town, and, contrasted to the speech in the previous act in many ways, ordered his men not to loot and pillage there: ‘Vse mercy to them all for vs, deare Vncle42’. Henry V knows that violence would not serve his goals here. King Henry’s task is to unite England and France into one nation, so killing and looting would form very negative public opinion about him. Maintaining of non-violent course towards the French was confirmed by another Henry’s order, in which he orders his troops:

…we giue expresse charge, that in our Marches through

42 Act 3, Scene 3, Verse 55 - 38 -

The Countrey, there be nothing compell’d from the Villages;

Nothing taken, but pay’d for: none of the French

Vpbrayded or abused in disdainefull Language; for when

Leuitie and Crueltie play for a Kingdome, the gentler

Gamester is the soonest winner.

(Act 3, Scene 6, Verses 112 – 117)

Here, in contrast to previous speeches, Henry explains the importance of non- violent approach. Not only he wants to win the French soil, but he wants to win the French peasants’ hearts. This long-term orientation may not seem natural for a soldier, but, apparently, it is a must for a king. In this utterance also appears a comparison of Henry and Charles (or perhaps the Dolphin) – comparison of Henry’s lenity and cruelty of the French usurpers.

Even though Henry’s orders were clear, there appeared one case of disobedience in his army. Unfortunately for Henry V, the one who offended against the orders was his former friend Bardolph, who ‘hath stolne a Pax43, and hanged must be44’. Despite Pistoll’s attempt to save his friend from this destiny, Bardolph ends up hanged. Even though Henry knew that Bardolph was going to be hanged, he did not do anything to save him. This situation presents an example of clash between friendship and duty. Apparently, duty in this point wins over friendship in Henry’s character, which is on one side sad, but at the same time logical. The future of his campaign relies on discipline, which must be maintained at any cost. The theme of superiority of duty over friendship is also depicted in the scene where Henry orders the traitors to death.

Violence, as it is obvious from this paragraph, is not the only way how to reach the goals Henry V set himself. In order to win the French hearts, Henry V sometimes prevent his troops from violent behaviour, yet he is not afraid to use violence against his

43 According to Johnson, pix or pax was a little box in which were kept the consecrated waffers 44 Pistoll’s request to Fluellen wether he would speak for Bardolph with Duke of Exeter – Act 3, Scene 6, Verse 41 - 39 - own men, no matter how close they are to him. This is also a proof that friendship is in the eyes of Henry V less important than success and achievement of his goals.

- 40 -

4. The battle of Agincourt

4.1. Ante bellum

Before the battle of Agincourt, the French king assembled a great army. French knights had the best armour in the world, the best horses and perhaps even the best training. Their army was superior to the poor, hungry, and tired English in every aspect and their confidence in victory reached the levels of certainty. No wonder that the Dolphin was longing to “eate the English45”. But, against all odds, when the French herald Montjoy comes to Henry to negotiate his ransom for French losses, Henry refuses to ransom him and his army and offers only his “fraile and worthlesse Trunke46”, meaning nothing more than his body.

Before the battle, Henry is “walking from Watch to Watch, from Tent to Tent47” to cheer his men up:

For forth he goes, and visits all his Hoast,

Bids them good morrow with a modest Smyle,

And calls them Brothers, Friends and Countreymen.

(Act 4, Chorus, Verses 32 – 34)

This is a new side of Henry’s character. In this point he developed from the ‘bully’ in front of Harfleur (see the threats to the Governor) and the ruthless king who demands total obedience (Bardolph’s hanging) into a humane creature, a nice guy who cheers his fellows and shows them that he is one of them, just a mortal set of muscle and bone, the same as they are. Henry here presents another extraordinary quality of a king, which is kindness. And the result is immediate, because “euery Wretch, pining and pale before, beholding him, plucks comfort from his Lookes48”.

45 Act 3, Scene 7, Verse 94 46 Act 3, Scene 6, Verse 160 47 Act 4, Chorus, Verse 30 48 Act 4, Chorus, Verses 41 - 42 - 41 -

He even makes jokes when talking to Bedford and Gloucester. First he admits that the English are in grave danger and their “bad Neighbour makes (them) early stirrers49”, but these circumstances are “both healthful, and good Husbandry50”. Henry’s good spirits are in contrast with the situation the English are in, but on the other hand maintaining good mood in every circumstance is a way more helpful than being nervous. Henry evidently is aware of King’s influence on his subjects and forces himself to keep calm even in this stressful situation.

The struggle to maintain calm could have ended when Henry borrowed Sir Erpingham’s cloak. From now on, he could hide from the burden his position pushed on him and be alone. But even this opportunity did not help him to regain calmness, on the contrary, Henry in disguise faced more issues concerning himself and his responsibilities.

First, he visited Pistoll’s watch. In this short episode, Henry may have regained some confidence, for Pistoll spoke very nicely of his king:

The King’s a Bawcock51, and a Heart of Gold, a

Lad of Life, an Impe52 of Fame, of Parents good, of Fist

Most valiant: I kisse his durtie shooe, and from heartstring

I loue the louely Bully53…

(Act 4, Scene 1, Verses 44 – 47)

But his second stand with his soldiers brought some problematic issues for the King. Bates and Williams suggested that King is responsible for his subjects’ sins they have done while obeying King’s orders. This Henry likes not and explains the difference he sees between violence for just cause (which is violence conducted in the battlefield) and violence done by men such as Bardolph, who looted the church. This kind must be

49 Act 4, Scene 1, Verse 6 50 Act 4, Scene 1, Verse 7 51 According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, Bawcock is a „fine fellow“. 52 Stevens explains that ‚imp‘ in Shakespeare’s time was used as a synonym for son. 53 Again, bully is not associated with violence here, the term ‚bully‘ is also an archaic expression for sweetheart, or a fine chap (Merriam-Webster) - 42 - punished and Henry explains (perhaps even to himself) why it was not so difficult for him to hang his former friend.

After the debate comes to Henry’s statement that he would not be ransomed, Williams strongly disagrees that things would happen that way. He replies that it is the way how things work – when it comes to life, kings and noblemen are ransomed, whereas the common soldiers die on the battlefield. This was actually true, in Middle Ages it was common to take prisoners and eventually after a victorious battle to exchange them for ransom. Disguised Henry disagrees and they change gloves with Williams so that they could quarrel after the battle (if they survive), because King’s orders, logically, banned quarrelling during the campaign. And, after all as Bates said, “wee haue French Quarrels enow54”, we have enough problems with the French so why quarrel together?

After his night inspection of his troops, Henry had plenty to think about. Shakespeare dealt with this with Henry’s soliloquy before his most famous St. Crispin’s speech. In this soliloquy Henry deals with King’s responsibilities. Since the soliloquy shows certain development in Henry’s character, I will examine it in the chapter titled ‘The character of Henry’.

Henry also managed a short prayer before the battle. His prayer was dedicated to ‘the God of Battailes55’, which is really uncommon in Christian environment, at least from the perspective of the 20th century56. Henry begged god to “steele57 his Souldiers hearts58’, to prevent them from fearing the French numbers and to help them gain victory. Because it was not Henry, but his father, who compassed the crown. Henry has done many good deeds, such as reburied Richard II, supported five hundred poor every year, and built two “Chauntries59”, or monasteries. With these evidence suggesting his goodness, he begs God for his divine support against the grand army of France.

54 Act 4, Scene 1, Verse 229 55 Act 4, Scene 1, Verse 295 56 But if we take into consideration Renaissance outlook on God and his deeds in the Old Testament, the idea of “God as a ‘man of war’, who supported the English” (Foakes 103) is outright. 57 Meaning ‚harden‘, ‚reinforce‘ 58 Act 4, Scene 1, Verse 295 59 Act 4, Scene 1, Verse 307 - 43 -

This chapter provides us evidence that Henry V dealt with a number of problematic issues concerning what it is to be a good ruler. The conclusion of these concerns is that being a good king is not the same as being a good man. These implications give us evidence that hypocrisy in friendship is for a king an acceptable way how to reach his goals, because King has responsibilities far above common men’s imagination and the good of his people should always be on the first place.

4.2. St. Crispin Speech

Undoubtedly King Henry’s most famous monologue, St Crispin’s Day speech, is a masterpiece among war speeches. Before this speech, desperate English lords bid one another farewell, because they did not believe that they would survive the day. Earl Westmoreland even wished they had had there “one ten thousand of those men in England, that doe no worke today60”. Into this unenviable situation comes Henry V with his speech, claiming that he would not wish even one more soldier to fight with him, because the fewer Englishmen there are in Agincourt, the “greater share of honour61” they get. If they are “markt to dye62”, the loss for England would be big enough. But if they survive, their honour will be the greater the fewer of them had fought. Henry V admits that he does not desire money and wealth, but his driving force is honour63. This reciprocal proportion between the number of men and their share of honour, together with Henry’s lust for honour, are highlighted by the following verses: “Rather proclaime it Westmerland through my Hoast, that he which hath no stomack to this fight, let him depart, his Pasport shall be made, and Crownes for Conuoy put into his Purse”. Henry in fact offered all his men a chance of non-punishable desertion. His reasons for this move were again connected to honour, because he “would not dye in that mans companie, that fears his fellowship, to dye with us.”

60 Act 4, Scene 3, Verses 16 - 17 61 Act 4, Scene 3, Verse 22 62 Act 4, Scene 3, Verse 20 63 Act 4, Scene 3, Verses 28 – 29. These verses are not included in neither ‚classical‘ film adaptations, which are 1944 Laurence Olivier’s and 1989 Kenneth Brannagh’s ones. The verses are: “But if it be a sinne to couet Honor, I am the most offending Soule alive”. - 44 -

For the survivors of this battle who will fight, Henry V offers great honour and a place in history, because:

He that out-liues this day, and comes safe home,

Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,

And rowse him at the Name of Crispian.

He that shall see this day, and liue old age,

Will yeerely on the Vigil feast his neighbours,

And say, to morrow is Saint Crispian.

Then will he strip his sleeue, and shew his skarres:

(Act 4, Scene 3, Verses 41 – 47)

On the contrary, those who will not be fighting, either because they retreat, or are not present, will “hold their Manhoods cheape64, whiles any speakes, that fought with vs upon Saint Crispines day65.”

The aim of St Crispin’s Day speech is to boost men’s morale and show that violence in times of war is connected to honour. Violence in a battlefield is also beneficial for friendship in this case, because retreat would mean loss in the battle and slaughter of one’s friends. This is the essence of what Shakespeare called ‘band of brothers’ – the group of friends formed in the time of war.

4.3. Depiction of battle scenes

Meanwhile, the French troops aligned into their formation and began to charge on their enemy. But since the preparations for the battle had been done carefully beforehand, Henry does not lose his temper. On the contrary, he must have been happy at this moment, for he achieved a triumph – a minor one, but on the other hand very

64 Will be lesser men that those who were fighting in Agincourt. 65 Act 4, Scene 3, Verses 6 - 67 - 45 - important at the same time. His men’s morale has risen astoundingly and they are eager to fight. Even Westmoreland, who had wished English reinforcements had been there before the speech, now wanted to fight the French only him and his king alone. York begs Henry on his knees to let him lead the “Vaward”, which means forefront.

Into this pre-battle scene enters the French herald Montjoy, who again offers Henry to ransom himself and his army. But Henry rejects this offer again, accusing the French of mocking his army. Henry admits that many Englishmen will find their graves in French “Dunghills66”, but they will fight even after their death. The corpses will attract plague to the French country and “breaake out into a second course of mischief, killing in relapse of Mortalitie67”. This statement predicts that even if the French win this battle, they will lose the war eventually because of the plague that would curse the whole France.

The battle of Agincourt is depicted only in tiny fragments including mostly the French troops and their shame of losing the battle they have been expecting to win. This scene is written mostly in French or a mix of French and English. The French aristocrats who retreated out of the battlefield see the reproach of their losing and decide to reform and conduct a last heroic attempt to change the course of events or die. As the Duke of Burgundy says in the end of this scene, “Let life be short, else shame will be too long.68”

Another scene which takes part during the battle is Pistoll’s capturing of a French soldier. This scene is comical, which seems inappropriate to the context of the battle. Pistoll captures a French soldier of whom he things that he is a nobleman. This wrong conclusion is done by misunderstanding French ‘O Seigneur Dieu’, which means ‘Oh my God’. Pistoll misheard heard the word ‘Seigneur’ for Sir, and forces the soldier to pay him ransome for his life, otherwise he would kill him. The comical nature of this scene is based on Pistoll’s horrible knowledge of French – first he thought that French ‘moi’ (me) is money, then he misunderstood ‘bras’ (arm) for brass (small change). With a help of the Boy who was with him and knew French Pistoll finally manged a deal and took his prisoner away for the ransome. Boy decided to go to English camp to look after English

66 Act 4, Scene 3, Verse 99 67 Act 4, Scene 3, Verses 106 - 107 68 Act 4, Scene 5, Verse 23 - 46 - movables which the French could eventually steal, because the camp was guarded only by lackeys and young servants.

The most moving scene from the whole play happened at the same time the Boy left the stage. Henry ordered his men to another charge when Exeter came to him with terrible news. The Duke of York and Earl of Suffolk died in the battle.

Suffolke first dyed, and Yorke all hagled ouer

Comes to him, where in gore he lay insteeped,

And takes him by the Beard, kisses the gashes

That bloodily did yawne vpon his face.

He cryes aloud; Tarry my Cosin Suffolke,

My soule shall thine keepe company to heauen:

Tarry (sweet soule) for mine, then flye a-brest:

As in this glorious and well-foughten field

We kept together in our Chiualrie.

(Act 4, Scene 6, Verses 11 – 19)

This scene is one of the most powerful depictions of friendship in the whole play. York and Suffolk remained friends until the very end and their shared destiny just underlined their strong friendship.

Shakespeare knew that it is impossible to depict large battle scenes on stage, so he used only episodes from the battle. These episodes show various aspects of friendship and violence – from Pistoll’s attempt to profit from war by earning a ransom to the moving depiction of friendship to the end (York and Suffolk) and remind the audience the humane aspects of wars. The last theme of this chapter is role of honour in the battlefield, depicted in French determination to continue in the battle against all odds and face certain death.

- 47 -

4.4. Slaughter of the POWs

The confusion of the battle together with Henry’s anger from the news of the death of York and Suffolk caused one of the most brutal decisions of the war. Henry, after he heard alarm, ordered to kill all the French prisoners. This move was a barbaric violation of the law of war, by which prisoners cannot be harmed. This was customary in middle ages as it is today and killing prisoners has always been considered a war crime. The order was done in the end of Scene 6 and carried out behind the stage. Scene 7, starting with Fluellen and Gower, tries to justify Henry’s decision, the French reportedly slaughtered the boys who were looking after the English camp. Slaughter of the boys is also “expressely against the Law of Armes, tis as arrant peece of Knauery69”, as Fluellen evaluated this crime. The co-occurrence of these dreadful events is purposeful – Shakespeare tried to justify Henry’s decision. The justification is even emphasized by Gower, who summarized these events in this speech:

Tis certaine, there's not a boy left aliue, and the

Cowardly Rascalls that ranne from the battaile ha' done

This slaughter: besides they haue burned and carried away

All that was in the Kings Tent, wherefore the King

Most worthily hath caus'd euery soldiour to cut his prisoners

Throat. O 'tis a gallant King

(Act 4, Scene 7, Verses 5 – 10)

The final exclamation ‘O 'tis a gallant King’ “shows wholehearted approval of Henry’s promptness in decision and his resolute determination” (Walter, 28). On the other hand, from the moral point of view it is inappropriate and the comparison of English ‘gallant King’ and French ‘peece of knauery’ is another hypocritical part of the play.

Henry’s rage continues until the end of the battle, when he sees some French cavalrymen on a hill. He orders his men to “ride unto the horsemen on yond hill”,

69 Act 4, Scene 7, Verse 2 - 48 - because “they do offend our sight”. Henry is determined to ride there and kill them all. Besides, he wants to kill every man the English shall take with no mercy.

In the scene where the English killed their prisoners and the French killed the boys, Shakespeare showed a great deal of hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is connected to the state of war (the division between ‘us’ and ‘them’) and the way people behave in situations in which violence dominates. Another hypocritical part of this scene is in the assessment of violence – the French slaughter of the boys is knavery, where King Henry’s order to kill the prisoners is seen as an act of a gallant King.

- 49 -

5. The character of Henry V

5.1. Youth and transition

The King Harry, as Shakespeare calls Henry V in his plays, is an ambiguous man. In his youth, which is depicted in further detail in Henry IV, part II, Harry was a bully, a young rascal, who would spend time in disreputable company. Young Harry’s most favourite companion was Sir John Falstaff, an old nobleman, who used to drink with ‘Prince Hal’, as he called young Harry. Falstaff had died before the plot of Henry V started, but is mentioned in the play marginally. Bardolph, who also appears in both plays (Henry IV, Henry V), was another companion of him.70 The Bishop of Canterbury describes the nature of Harry’s youth in Act 1 Scene 1:

Since his addiction was to Courses in vaine,

His Companies vnletter’d, rude, and shallow,

His Houres fill’d vp with Ryots, Banquets, Sports;

And neuer noted in him any studie,

Any retyrement, any sequestration,

From open Haunts and Popularitie

(Act 1, Scene 1, Verses 54-59)

In his youth, ‘his addiction71 was to Courses in vaine’, meaning that he “used to like activities of no value or importance”. This implies an incompetent young irresponsible kid, rather than the heir to English throne. Harry’s favourite activities such as drinking, fighting, and doing sports, and the sort of people he would meet – illiterate, rude people with no interest in studying (a reference to Bardolph and other commoners young Henry would spend his youth with), did not make Harry good name in public eyes.

70 The character of Bardolph is analysed in the List of characters. 71 According to McQuain and Malless, the author of a book Coined by Shakespeare – Words and meanings first used by the Bard, the term ‘addiction’ has been used in this play for the first time in history, meaning „strong inclination“. - 50 -

Instead of “retyrement” and “sequestration from open Haunts and Popularitie”, which means keeping apart from banquets and studying, young Harry did the exact opposite. Thus comes the excitement about the significant change in Harry’s personality expressed by the bishop of Canterbury. In these lines, he describes the transition of wild and sinful Prince Hal into the Harry of the play Henry V:

The breath no sooner left his Fathers body,

But that his wildnesse, mortify’d in him,

Seem’d to dye too: yea, at the very moment,

Consideration like an Angell came,

And whipt th’ offending Adam out of him…

(Act 1, Scene 1, Verses 25-29)

The change was, in fact, virtually miraculous. After his father’s death, Harry become a grown man fully aware of his duties. This miraculous metamorphosis of Henry’s character is explained by R. A. Foakes in his monography Shakespeare and Violence: “…Henry is also developed from the Prince Hal of Henry IV, Part 2, the sober youth who tries on his father’s crown with a consciousness of a burden of responsibilities to come, who is kept removed from war, and who casts off civil disorder and corruption in the person of Falstaff.” (Foakes 97). The act of trying to put the royal crown on is the most important moment of Henry’s transition. The responsibilities of the King were materialised in the play Henry IV by the crown, holder of which becomes the King, the father of his nation, the person responsible for success and well-being of his subjects.

Young Henry V was a self-centred irresponsible bully. This is depicted mostly throughout the whole play Henry IV. But after the coronation, he developed into a responsible mature king whose concern is the good of his country.

- 51 -

- 52 -

5.2. Henry V after coronation

According to Bishop of Canterbury, Harry became an expert on every possible field of study (Diuinitie, which means theology, Common-Wealth Affaires, meaning internal policy, discourse of Warre (war), etc. In Scene 2, we can see Harry the King in conversation about state affairs, asking Bishop of Canterbury for advice:

We charge you in the Name of God take heed:

For neuer two such Kingdomes did contend,

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltlesse drops

Are euery one, a Woe, a sore Complaint,

‘Gainst him, whose wrongs giues edge vnto the Swords,

That makes much waste in briefe mortalitie.

(Act 1, Scene 2, Verses 23-28)

Away is Harry’s youth, here speaks a man who realises his responsibility for his subjects’ lives and souls (…a sore Complaint, ‘Gainst him, whose wrongs giues edge vnto the Swords, That makes much waste in briefe mortalitie.) These verses introduce the theme of responsibility for lost lives, but also for all the evil the War brings. It was crucial for Harry to ensure that all his courses were just72 and according to law. Otherwise, it would be he himself who would pay for all wrongdoings committed during the campaign. This theme appears also in the night before St. Crispin’s day when the King in disguise visits his troops. Bates confirms the belief that the King is responsible for all his subjects’ sins (…wee are the Kings Subiects: If his Cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the Cryme of it out of vs.). These verses are pure essence of the relationship between the King and his subjects. The virtue of a subject is to obey and follow his king in every circumstances, the virtue of a king is to act justly and honestly, so that the nation won’t suffer God’s revenge.

72 The theme of justness of King’s courses (doing) is often repeated in the whole play. The purpose of justification of the war is clear – Shakespeare’s Henry is a definition-like depiction of a great Christian king. - 53 -

Shakespeare’s intention was, according to Foakes, to depict Henry V as an ideal Christian knight and king. For this purpose, he continually links Henry V with God, and claims divine support for him73. This divine consecration of the character of Henry V is instrumental for justifying all his actions, however difficult it may be.

The peak of King Henry’s virtues is depicted before the invasion. Henry V is described as a ruler caring about his people and justness of his cause, who trusts his council and has support of the whole nation.

5.3. Henry V in France

In France, King Henry’s development continues in a very different direction. In Harfleur he proved himself excellent orator capable of cheering his men, yet on the other hand his ruthlessness arose there, too. Here, I am referring to the verse “Or close the Wall vp with our English dead” from his Harfleur monologue. King Henry’s anger and brutality emerged in his threats to the governor of Harfleur, when he describes the atrocities his soldiers would commit if he does not surrender the town. On his way to Agincourt, King Henry’s goal-oriented nature expressed by letting Bardolph die emerged in full scale, continuing in Agincourt where he ordered to kill the prisoners. The slaughter would help English prepare for eventual another attack of French troops.

In the final part, another feature of King Henry’s personality appeared. He is very clever and good at manipulating people, which happened in the incident with Williams’ glove. King Henry tricked Fluellen into wearing it74, so that Williams would punch him and not Henry V. On the other hand, it was logical, because Williams, when punching Fluellen, satisfied his honour without committing capital offense by attacking the King. Henry V dealt with this situation cleverly, he made sure that this incident will not develop into a fight between the two by ordering Warwick and Gloucester to follow Fluellen and solve an eventual dispute between him and Williams. At the same time, Henry V was close enough to adjudicate the two if something goes wrong. This

73 Foakes 100 74 Act 4, Scene 8, Verses 157 - 163 - 54 - happened in Act 4, Scene 7, and Henry V has solved this problem neatly. He admitted that it was his fault, ordered to fill Williams’ glove with money and give it to him, and told Fluellen to become friend with Williams.

The character of Henry V deteriorates in France, where his violent nature is uncovered. In Harfleur, his ruthlessness forces his men to charge again and again, and his threats to the governor are a proof that Henry V is a brutal person who would do anything to reach his goals. Also the theme of manipulation with people is emerging as a part of King Henry’s personality, depicted in the way he tricked Fluellen into wearing Williams’ glove. But Henry V remains also a good person who admits his fault and endows Williams for his loyalty with the golden coins.

- 55 -

6. Friendship in Henry V

6.1. Pistoll, Nym, and Bardolph

The second act starts with the chorus I have described in the previous chapter. The whole nation prepares for the forthcoming campaign, its spirits are high. The first scene of the second act, on the other hand, offers a counterpart to the cheerful and optimistic mood of the prologue. It is unfortunate that this scene is the first scene that deals with the matter of friendship, or, with former friendship which is now gone. The setting of the first scene is in London, where three popular comic characters – Ancient Pistoll, Lieutenant Bardolfe, and Corporall Nym75 – deal with a great interpersonal relationship problem. Friendship of Pistoll and Nym deteriorated after Pistoll married Mistress Nell Quickly – the owner of an Eastcheap76 tavern best known from Henry IV, the Boar’s Head Inn. In this tavern young Prince Hal77 would meet Sir John Falstaff and his companions. We learn that Nym had been engaged to Nell Quickly before she married Pistoll, but she has chosen Pistol in the end. It is no surprise that Nym is now angry with Pistoll, but Bardolfe tries to make the two foes friends again. He even wants to invite them for breakfast before they move to Southampton, from where they will set sail into France. Nym, on the other hand, admits, that “when time shall serve, we (Pistoll and him) shall be in good humour78 with each other, but be it as it may” (Malone, 235). This is one of the possible explanations, if not the most possible one, of Nym’s verses by which he replies on Bardolph’s question whether the two are friends yet:

For my part, I care not: I say little; but when

75 These characters are known from Henry IV, where they accompanied Sir Falstaff. Ancient Pistoll and Bardolph also appear in the Merry Wives of Windsor – a comedy set into the reign of Henry IV. In the version I have analysed their names are spelled Bardolfe, Pistoll, and Nym, in modern transcripts the renaissance spelling is replaced by new spelling – Bardolph, Pistol and Nym. 76 A street in central London, former meat market. 77 A nickname Falstaff used to call young Henry V in both parts of Henry IV. 78 In a quarto version, there is a slight change in the text. In verse 10, the words ‚and there’s an end.‘ are replaced by ‚and there’s the humour of it.‘ Malone analysed the quarto, hence the reference to ‚humour‘. But this change does not have any difference in meaning, so it is insignificant. - 56 -

Time shall serue, there shall be smiles; but that shall

be as it may…

(Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 2 – 4)

Pistoll and Quickly then come on the stage and things start to get worse. When Nym sees the newly married couple, he lifts his sword and a quarrel between the two adversaries. Both Bardolph and Quickly want to prevent the men from fighting. Nym begs them not to drink so that things would not get worse.

But every attempt to calm the two down seems pointless and they swear at each other. To demonstrate their hostility in this scene, I present the initial part of their conflict:

Nym: Pish79

Pistoll: Pish for thee, Island dogge: thou prickeard cur

Of Island80

Hostess: Good Corporall Nym shew thy valor, and put

Vp your sword

Nym: Will you shogge off81? I would haue you solus82

Pistoll: Solus, egregious83 dog? O Viper vile; The solus

In thy most meruailous face, the solus in thy teeth, and

In thy throate, and in thy hatefull Lungs, yea in thy Maw84

79 ‚used to express disdain or contempt‘ (merriam-webster.com) 80 Malone explains that the term ‚Island‘ is a misspelling of Iceland. According to Walter, Iceland dog is a „pointed-eared, long-haired lap-dog. Iceland dogs were very hairy and inclined to be snappish, in both presumably an apt description of Nym“ (Walter 32) 8181 According to Steevens, it means „move off“ (Steevens 239). On the other hand, Walter offers a different explanation – „move along“ (Walter 32). When we consider the context, both explanations are possible. Nym either wants actually to fight Pistol ‚solus‘, or it is only a wish – Nim would prefer if Pistol had not been married. 82 Solus means either alone, or single, unmarried in Latin. 83 Eminent, distinguished. This highflown adjective just emphasises the insult Pistol delivers. 84Belly,stomach;throat,gullet (http://www.shakespeareswords.com/Headwords-Instance.aspx?Ref=10624) - 57 -

Perdy85; and which is worse, within thy nastie mouth. I

Do retort86 the solus in thy bowels, for I can take87, and Pistols

Cocke88 is vp89, and flashing fire will follow

Nym: I am not Barbason90, you cannot coniure mee: I

Haue an humor to knocke you indifferently well: If you

Frow wowle with me Pistoll, I will scoure you with my

Rapier, as I may, in fayre tearmes. If you would walke

Off, I would pricke your guts a little in good tearmes, as

I may, and that’s the humor of it

(Act 2, Scene 1, Verses 40 – 57)

According to Walter, in verses 46 – 50 (The solus … bowels) “Pistoll’s outburst is a parody of that part of the service of exorcism known as the “conjuratio” (Walter, 33). Conjuratio, or Panis conjuratio, is an ‘exorcism of the bread’. The accused was given an ounce91 of consecrated bread or cheese and his guilt was judged according to how he swallowed it. Pistoll’s parody on this means of exorcism may refer to Nym’s knife, which looks more like a cheese knife than a weapon (Act 2, Scene 1, Verse 8). Thus another sophisticated insult.

The threat: “for I can take, and Pistols Cocke is vp, and flashing fire will follow” is clear reference on Pistol’s name – when the cock of a gun is up, the gun is ready to fire. And so was Pistoll, who was terribly enraged at the moment.

This argument of two former friends, now foes, shows clearly how malicious love can be. In Henry IV and The Merry Wives of Windsor, these two were good friends, yet

85 Per Die – by God (Walter 33) 86 reply 87 Strike, cause harm (Walter 33) 88 The device in firearms which hammers the bullet 89 „is cocked for firing, i.e. Pistol’s blood is up (Walter 33) 90 „Brabason is the name of a daemon mentioned in The Merry Wives of Windsor, Vol. III, p. 74, n.5. (Steevens 240). This is Nym’s response on Pistol’s parody of exhorcism. 91 Approximately 28,3 g - 58 - now, divided by a woman, they swear, threaten to employ violence as the most monstrous means of animosity, and cannot stand each other’s presence.

Even though this story stems from classical plays (stories of love triangles are common since Greek plays (Illias) throughout Middle ages (Decameron) to Renaissance (The Knight’s Tale in Canterbury tales, Shakespeare’s As You Like It, A Midsummer Night’s Dream), it is completely different from its models. Both Pistol and Nym present characters that provide comic relief in Shakespeare’s plays. In this respect, the whole story of Pistol’s marriage and the verbal duel of these foes mocks works of classical drama dealing with the subject of love triangle in the most hilarious way possible. For example the register both protagonists use is varying from Nym’s simple derogatory ‘pish’ to Pistoll’s parody of exorcism. This wide scale of ways how to express an insult is underlining the comic effect the whole argument has.

Bardolph tries to calm these two cocks on one dunghill down, but his threats have no effect. The end of this dispute comes when the Boy brings bad news about Sir Falstaff, who is on his deathbed and his conditions deteriorate. This shock, accompanied with the reminder that Pistol and Nym were Falstaff’s servants and became friends during their service there, and the fact that they are supposed to go to France, finally calmed their spirits down and the animosity disappeared as fast as it rose.

In France, the story of these four characters continues in Harfleur, where they are cowardly hiding instead of fighting. This scene is not significant from the point of friendship, it only offers the audience an outlook on their personalities, as described in Boy’s speech.

Another depiction of friendship among this little band of scoundrels, which is very powerful, is Pistoll’s attempt to save Bardolph from being hanged. Pistol in Act 3, Scene 6 tries to convince Fluellen to speak for Bardolph with Exeter. When Fluellen rejects to help “for if, looke you, he92 were my brother, I would desire the Duke to vse his pleasure, and put him to execution; for discipline ought be vsed”93. After Fluellen’s refusal to help, Pistoll contempts him rather unscrupulously: “Dye, and be damn’d, and

92 Bardolph 93 Act 3, Scene 6, Verses 55 - 57 - 59 -

Figo94 for thy friendship95”. In modern terms this would be classified as ‘disrespecting superior officer’, yet Fluellen keeps calm head and dissembles this insult.

But Pistoll does not overcome Fluellen’s lack of enthusiasm on Bardolph’s case and becomes his foe. When Henry V in disguise visits Pistoll the night before St Crispin’s and Pistoll learns that the ‘mysterious Welshman’ is Fluellen’s kinsman, he gets angry with the Welshman and sends him to send Fluellen this message: “Tell him Ile knock his Leeke about his Pate vpon S[aint]. Dauies day”. Leek is Welsh national plant and St David is patron of Wales, so it seems that Pistoll’s hatred expanded to everything connected to Wales.

Fluellen, on the other hand, strikes Pistoll back when he forces him to eat a leek after they return to London96. This is the only example of animousity among the English troops in the whole play, because the war and sharing their miseries formed strong bonds among the men, no matter from which social background they came. On the other hand, even this animosity was triggered because of strong friendship between Pistoll and Bardolph.

Pistoll, Nym, and Bardolph are comic characters, but their destiny involves also a number of serious issues. They are cowardly at the gates of Harfleur, but also love-lead in London and friend-oriented, as depicted in Pistoll’s incident with Fluellen.

6.2. Scroope, Cambridge, Gray, and Henry V

The second scene of Act 2 deals with more serious problems. Henry V accidentally discovered that his friend Thomas Lord Scroope of Marsham together with two other conspirators, Richard Earle of Cambridge and Thomas Grey, Knight of

94 Acording to Steevens, this is an allusion to „the custom of giving poisoned figs to those who were objects of revenge“ (Steevens 291). Acording to Walter, this „expression of contempt was accompanied by a coarse gesture in which the thumb was thrust between the fingers or into the mouth“ (Walter 78) 95 Act 3, Scene 6, Verse 58 96 Act 5, Scene 1 - 60 -

Northumbreland, plotted against him and had been bribed by the French to assassinate Henry V in Southampton, before he sets sail to France.

The most surprising name on the list is Scroope, who was King Henry’s trusted friend. Duke of Exeter formulated his surprise of this revelation and at the same time described relationship of Scroope and King Henry:

…but the man that was his bedfellow,

Whom he hath dull’d and cloy’d97 with gracious fauours;

That he should for a forraigne purse, so sell

His Soueraignes life to death and treachery.

(Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 8 – 11)

Scroope was, as Exeter mentioned, King Henry’s befellow. Bedfellow is, as the term implies, a friend so close that he or she could be (and often even was) invited into someone’s bed. According to Malone, “(t)he familiar appellation of bedfellow, which appears strange to us, was common among the ancient nobility” (Malone, 243). Scroope was very close to Henry V, and after the coronation, Scroope was given many favours (he was ‘dull’d and cloy’d).

It is not said what exactly was the motivation of the three traitors. It is unquestionable that one of their reasons was money (forraigne purse). But, even though the play does not reveal more possibilities, it is very unlikely that money was the only motive. As I have mentioned above, King Henry’s claim to the throne was not the strongest one. There was at least one man who could claim the crown with large support of English nobility. This man was Edmund Mortimer. It has been argued that (at least some of) the conspirators were Mortimer’s supporters and tried to enforce their favourite to the throne, and at the same time earn some good money into the bargain. But it is just a mere speculation, Shakespeare does not offer any evidence in his play.

97 According to Walter‚ dull’d and cloy’d‘ means „whose appetites have been satisfies and surfeited“ (Walter 38). - 61 -

Henry V dealt with this problem in cold blood. He started to play a game with the three noblemen, in which he forced them to unknowingly impose sentence over themselves. He mentioned a soldier who, being drunk, spoke against Henry V (rayl’d against our person98), and asked his council (of which the conspirators were part) for advice how to treat this soldier. Henry V suggested mercy99, but Scroope, Cambridge and Grey advised him to make this case exemplary100 and execute him. But, doing so, they have just sealed their destiny – Henry V had them executed.

He distributed them letters with description of what they have done, and when they were reading these, he made fun out of them:

…Why how now, gentlemen?

What see you in those papers, that you loose

So much complexion? Looke ye how they change:

Their cheekes are paper. Why, what reade you there,

That haue so cowarded and chac’d your blood

Out of appearance

(Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 71 – 76)

When the conspirators begged for mercy, Henry V was relentless to them. But from the nature of King Henry’s speech, it does not seem as if he took the conspiracy personally. In fact, he took it as it was, a fact, and just another step to fulfil his goal. First he expressed no mercy to them, because of their advice in the drunken soldier’s case:

The mercy that was quicke in vs but late,

By your owne counsaile is supprest and kill’d…

98 Act 2, Scene 2, Verse 41 99 Act 2, Scene 2, Verse 43 100 Scroope: That’s mercy, but too much security: Let him be punish’d Soueraigne, least example Breed (by his sufferance) more of such a kind (Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 44 – 46) - 62 -

(Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 79 – 80)

Then he expressed some personal feelings to ‘these English Monsters101’, especially to his former friend Scroope:

What shall I say to thee Lord Scroope, thou cruell,

Ingrateful, sauage, and inhumane Creature?

Thou that didst beare the key of all my counsailes,

That knew’st the very bottome of my soule,

That (almost) might’st haue coyn’d me into Golde…

(Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 94 – 98)

This part reveals King Henry’s animosity towards his former best friend (or at least one of his best friends) in full scale. The titles ‘savage’ and ‘inhuman creature’ are used here to express King Henry’s revulsion towards Scroope, which is logical in this moment. On the other hand, Henry V expresses also grief, perhaps slight desperation (Thou that didst beare… my soule) over why it must have been Scroope. Henry V would weep for Scroope102, and since now he seems not to trust anyone as much as he trusted Scroope. Johnson, referring to verses

‘Oh how hast thou with iealousie infected

The sweetness of affiance? ...

(Act 2, Scene 2, Verses 126 – 127)

conveys this opinion that “one of the worst consequences of breach of trust is the diminution of that confidence which makes the happiness of life, and the dissemination of suspicion, which is the poison of society” (Johnson, 248). From this point of view, Henry V lost confidence of friendship for good.

In his monologue to Scroope, Henry V suggests that Scroope must have been seduced by Devil himself. As Foakes mentions, “Henry V depicts him as succumbing to

101 Act 2, Scene 2, Verse 85 102 Act 2, Scene 2, Verse 140 - 63 - the temptation of a devil in a repetition of the temptation of Adam” (Foakes 98). In this moment, King Henry’s transformation into godlike king started to become more and more obvious. But with this transformation goes hand in hand solitude and loneliness, because kings (at least Shakespeare’s kings) seem to be destined to be alone103.

This loneliness of kings may go hand in hand with some ‘divine’ aura which encloses them. Kingship is appointed by God, hence the distance between kings and ‘common people’ – either noble or not. People in Shakespeare’s plays tend to fear kings, because their power is supports by God himself. This may be the reason why kings do not have real friends (at least kings in Shakespeare’s plays). The difference is clearly seen in the character of Henry V. In Henry IV, Prince Hal enjoyed the company of his friends (Falstaff, Ned Poins, Bardolph), which sooner or later disappeared. This must be because Henry V became the King. In Henry IV he rejected Falstaff and others and Poins somehow disappeared between Henry IV, Pt. 2 and Henry V. Henry V introduces Scroope, who immediately dies. Then we have Falstaff, who died in Act 2, Scene 1, Bardolph and Nym die during the campaign in France and Pistoll disappears. So, in the end, Henry V ends with no real friends.

The affair of Scroope, Cambridge, and Gray gives a suggestion why Henry V did not have any friends in the end of the play. The treachery of those whom he trusted and loved the most must have had a disastrous impact on King Henry’s relationships to people in general. Henry V, together with Pistoll, therefore end up as the only characters who have no friends left in the end of the play, but the reasons why their friendships have ended are different. King Henry’s friends betrayed him and had to be punished, and Pistoll’s friends died in the campaign.

103 For example see Edward III who does not seem to have personal friends; Richard II, who systematically banishes his friends; Hamlet and the history of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, … - 64 -

7. Conclusion

Violence and friendship are important aspects of the play Henry V and have significant influence on both people and their mentalities in the play. The influence of violence on people is obvious – many are killed (French nobility, English boys, Bardolph, English traitors), the impact of friendship on people is also clear (Pistoll’s behaviour towards Fluellen). The influence of violence on the mentalities of the characters is also significant (King Henry’s transformation from an ideal king into a violent person in Harfleur and Agincourt).

In the play, the character of Henry V develops from young idealist overly concerned with justness of his cause whom I have depicted in the paragraphs 2.2., 5.2., and partly in 3.2., to an ambiguous king whose personality is very difficult to describe (see 2.3., 3.1.,4.4., and mainly in 5.3.). There can be found evidence of kindness (5.3.), good spirit (3.1.), bravery (3.1., 4.2.), consideration (2.2.), but also relentlessness (3.1.), hypocrisy (2.3., 4.1., 4.4. 5.3.), and Machiavellian manipulation with people (5.3.) in the character of Henry V. This combination of characteristics may not have depicted a model human being, but it certainly depicts an ideal king. It is obvious that Henry V was very efficient in fulfilling his goals, yet on the other side, he was also loved by his subjects as a good modest person (as depicted in 5.2.). This ambiguity of his character makes Henry V difficult to understand, yet very interesting person who is forced to do his best at the time of war (4.1.).

In the time of war, friendship developed among the soldiers of all ranks (see 4.2., 4.3., 6.1.). This phenomenon is represented by most cases present in the play, with the exception of Pistoll and Fluellen, who ended up as enemies (see 6.1.). On the other hand, this was caused by Fluellen’s rejection to help Bardolph, who was Pistoll’s friend. Friendship as seen in ‘the band of brothers’ Henry V lead to the battle (4.2.) is a theme reappearing throughout the whole play, the characters express great compliments to their friends’ qualities, both military and personal ones. These compliments emphasise the patriotic mood of the play.

- 65 -

Friendship also affected use of violence in the play. The most hideous example is slaughter of French prisoners in Agincourt after Henry V learned that York and Suffolk were killed in the battle (4.4.), but there are many more examples such as the Southampton plot which partly initialised violent part of Henry V, as seen in 6.2.

Violence as depicted in the play Henry V is used for various reasons. The theme of justness of reviving the war is analysed in the initial act I am dealing with in paragraphs 2.1., 2.2., and 5.1., but then a focus on depiction of war and violence connected to the French campaign is evident. Shakespeare analysed the downfall of Henry V in the parts I have analysed in paragraphs 2.3., 3.1., 4.4., and mainly in 5.3., but he also defends Henry V in the part I have analysed in paragraph 4.1.

From the evidence given in this thesis, I therefore find Henry V a great king of England, who sacrificed his good personality to a greater cause, which is the success of his kingdom and its people. I have also found that Shakespeare’s depiction of an ideal king is in contrast of an ideal man, the most important virtues of the great king are goal- orientation, relentlessness, and a great deal of hypocrisy.

- 66 -

8. Bibliography

Camerlingo, Rosanna. "Henry V Andthe Just War: Shakespeare, Gentili and Machiavelli." Renaissance Quarterly 66.4 (2013): 91-108. Ashgate Publishing Company. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Foakes, R. A. Shakespeare and Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Web. 6 Feb. 2016

“Friendship”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016

"Friendship Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation and Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com." Friendship Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation and Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.

Hilský, Martin. Shakespeare a Jeviště Svět. Praha: Academia, 2010. Print.

“Hundred years’ war”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 23 Jul. 2015

"Internet Shakespeare Editions." Henry V (Folio 1, 1623) ::. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

- 67 -

MacQuain, Jeffrey, and Stanley Malless. Coined by Shakespeare: Words and Meanings First Penned by the Bard. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1998. Print.

Orend, Brian. "War." Stanford University. Stanford University, 2000. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.

Shakespeare, William, and Andrew Gurr. King Henry V. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Web. 20 Feb. 2016

McClintock, John, and James Strong. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968. Web. 14 Feb. 2016

Shakespeare, William, Samuel Johnson, George Steevens, and Isaac Reed. The Plays of William Shakespeare in Seventeen Volumes, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators, to Which Are Added Notes. Vol. IX. Philadelphia, Penn.: Conrad, 1805. Web. 13 Feb. 2016

Shakespeare, William, and A. R. Humphreys. Henry V. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Israel Gollancz. Shakespeare's King Henry V. London: J.M. Dent, 1895. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and J. H. Walter. King Henry V. London: Methuen, 1954. Print.

- 68 -

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. This realm of England, 1399 to 1688. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1976. Print.

Sumption, Jonathan. Trial by Battle (The Hundred years’ war I). London: Faber and Faber, 1999. Print.

“Violence”. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 11 Feb. 2016

"Violence Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation and Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com." Violence Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation and Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.

Wilkinson, B. The Later Middle Ages in England, 1216-1485. London: Longman, 1977. Print.

- 69 -