Loma Linda University TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects 6-1986 Shakespeare's Henry V and the Alexandrian Allusion Winona Howe Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons, European History Commons, and the Literature in English, British Isles Commons Recommended Citation Howe, Winona, "Shakespeare's Henry V and the Alexandrian Allusion" (1986). Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects. 1042. https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/1042 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects by an authorized administrator of TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY V AND THE ALEXANDRIAN ALLUSION by Winona Howe The character of Henry V (in Shakespeare's play of the same name) has been a matter of debate among critics, some of whom accept the historical view of Henry as an extraordinarily able and heroic king, while others view him as an extremely unattractive personality, a spiritual hypocrite, and a conqueror of unmitigated cruelty. Cited as supporting evidence for this unflattering portrait is a passage in Act IV which consists of a conversation between two characters, Gower and Fluellen. In this conversation, Henry is compared to Alexander the Great or "the Pig" as Fluellen terms him. Two critics, Ronald Berman and Robert Merrix, have published studies of this passage; a close examination of the allusion, however, reveals serious flaws in the theories of both scholars. Berman asserts that Henry is a reconstruction of Alexander, but an extended comparison of the two men confirms that, although they have a number of attitudes and circumstances in common, there are too many basic differences for Henry to be viewed as Alexander's reconstruction. Furthermore, scrutiny of the passage demonstrates that, although Shakespeare could have employed the mentioned similarities between Henry and Alexander, he chose, instead, trivial examples that deprive the comparison of meaning. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Shakespeare meant his audience to take the comparison seriously. Merrix has identified an interesting structure in the allusion, but the sources he uses to establish Alexander's character (and by implication, Henry's) are uniformly negative, although the preponderance of information on Alexander's life, that Shakespeare's audience would have been familiar with, consisted of either histories that presented Alexander as worthy of respect, if not admiration, or romances that depicted him as a larger-than-life hero. The Renaissance was fascinated by the character of Alexander; therefore, it must be assumed that even if the comparison had been a serious one, it would not have rebounded to Henry's detriment. Although the main burden of proof rests on the passage itself, additional avenues of investigation include the political situation at the time the play was written and how it might have affected both the playwright and his audience, other references to Alexander in the play, and the attitude of the speakers towards Henry. In conclusion, the character of Henry V does not suffer from the Alexandrian allusion. Shakespeare presented Henry as a complex, but not flawless, character but he never entirely departed from the historical view of Henry, as a king whose honor and glory would be remembered forever. 2 LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY Graduate School SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY V AND THE ALEXANDRIAN ALLUSION by Winona Howe A Thesis in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in English June 1986 Each person whose signature appears below certifies that this thesis in his/her opinion is adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree Master of Arts. Chairman Robert P. Dunn, Professor of EngI'Iih ii SHAKESPEARE'S HENRY V AND THE ALEXANDRIAN ALLUSION William Shakespeare's history play, Henry V, was first performed in 1599; as far as is known today, it did not attract immediate attention. It may not have been particularly popular, or if it was initially, the popularity may have J>een of short duration. No contemporary reviews or information exist to give us insight into the play itself, its chief character, or how either was received by the Elizabethan audience. It was not performed, thereafter, with any great regularity, a fact which Ronald Berman attributes to a general decline of interest in medieval history (14). When it was performed, not much reaction to the play was observed, or at least recorded, for almost two hundred years. However, in the eighteenth century, Henry V began to be both performed regularly and analyzed seriously. It was soon apparent that the critics of the play and their analyses would fall into sharply defined camps. One group of critics accepted Henry simply as the "mirror of all Christian kings" (2.prologue.6). This was the historical version of Henry and Shakespeare hardly had to change the wording of his ~ources in some instances; for example, Edward Hall, in his Chronicles, had referred to Henry as "the mirror of Christendom" (113). In a passage which can only be described as laudatory, Henry is depicted as: a kyng whose life was immaculate & his liuyng without spot. This kyng was a prince whom all men loued & of none disdained. This prince was a capitaine against whom fortune neuer 1 2 frowned nor mischance once spurned. This capitaine was a shepherde whom his flocke loued and louyngly obeyed (112). The passage is a long one and continues in the same vein, summing up the life of the king who apparently, in Hall's view, set the standard for all kings to come. Raphael Holinshed's description of Henry follows Hall's closely and concludes: A maiestie was he that both liued & died a paterne in princehood, a lode-starre in honour, and mirrour of magnificence; the more highlie exalted in his life, the more deepelie lamented at his death, and famous to the world alwaie (Nicoll 89). Some critics, such as Henry Hudson, have held that the historical Henry is essentially one and the same with the dramatic character who was delineated by Shakespeare. An admiring Hudson wrote that: The character of Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth may almost be said to consist of piety, honesty, and modesty. And he embodies these qualities in their simplest and purest form • • • And all the other manly virtues gather upon him in the train of these (22-23). Charles Knight shifted from this position when he stated that bad, as well as good, traits were to be noted in Henry. We may, indeed, say that, if Henry V was 3 justly fitted to be a leader of chivalry,­ fearless, enterprising, persevering, generous, pious,-he was, at the same time, rash, obstinate, proud, superstitious, seeking after vain renown and empty conquests, instead of making his people happy by wise laws and the cultivation of sound knowledge (5.388). With this description, Knight is presenting his perceptions of a more complex individual, a man who had many faults, but was equally possessed of many virtues and that, furthermore, his faults were human and explainable. A large number of critics, however, not only do not join in the eulogizing of Henry, but are unwilling to grant him any virtues whatsoever. The only good William Hazlitt grudgingly had to say of him was that he was a "very favorite monarch with the English nation." Otherwise, he was fond of war and low company;-we know little else of him. He was careless, dissolute, and ambitious;-idle, or doing mischief. In private, he seemed to have no idea of the common decencies of life, which he subjected to a kind of regal license; in public affairs, he seemed to have no idea of any rule of right and wrong, but brute force, glossed over with a little religious hypocrisy (159). Hazlitt sums up his description by referring to Henry disparagingly as 4 a "very amiable monster, a very splendid pageant" (161). Many reasons are given by critics for their dislike of Henry. John Cunliffe, among others, finds his wit and wooing offensive (325); A. c. Bradley damns with faint praise by referring to Henry as "efficient" (256); Mark Van Doren resents his heartiness (149); John Masefield describes him as "quite common, quite selfish, quite without feeling" (Gregson 82); John Palmer (237) and Charles Mitchell (99) have isolated Henry's most prominent characteristic as his desire to justify his actions, while at the same time, evading moral responsibility for them; A. R. Humphreys (35) and Gary Taylor (32-33) speak of his ruthlessness and coldblooded approach to war. The specific war examples which are taken to support this view are Henry's terrifying speech at Harfleur (3.3.1-43) and his command that the French prisoners should have their throats cut (4.7.63-65). A conversation between Gower and Fluellen is juxtaposed with the second incident in which the soldier, Fluellen, draws a comparison between Henry and Alexander the Great, or the "Pig" as Fluellen terms him; this passage is taken by many critics (when it is considered at all) to support the view of Henry as a cruel and ruthless individual. However, I believe that a close examination of this passage and its related circumstances reveals a far different and far more likely interpretation. An analysis of the examples which Shakespeare chose to use in his comparison indicates that he could hardly have expected his audience to take the comparison seriously, as his examples were either too general or not applicable and when, in fact, far closer parallels 5 between the two individuals did exist and could have been used.