Henry V & Modern Culture
*Warning: Discussion of rape*
While reading Henry V, I was pretty ambivalent toward the titular character until partway through Act 3. What was the tipping point, you may ask? Look no further than Act 3, Scene 4, where our favorite(?) king threatens the governor of a French city with mass murders and rapes. As you do.
The scene starts out simple enough, with King Henry beseeching the Governor to give up while the getting is good: "If you surrender now, we'll be chill. But if you make us come in there, we'll have no choice but to rape your wives and daughters and kill your infants." I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but the message is still intact. King Henry actually says, "What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause, If your pure maidens fall into the hand Of hot and forcing violation..." (817). So, not only are we getting some pretty awful threats along the lines of raping wives and daughters and impaling babies on pikes, we also get a nice dose of victim blaming. Am I even supposed to like this guy at this point?
Reading this play through the lens of a college student in the 21st century is assuredly a different experience than reading it when it was first published. King Henry's speech here was the moment my dislike of him solidified after a little over 2 acts of previous characterization. He seemed like a decent enough guy, though cocky like most would expect a king to be. He ordered the execution of his traitorous subordinates, but that seems par for the course for an English monarch of the era.
I understand that his siege of the French city is no different, and that war is brutal and ugly. These things happened then and they continue to happen now; but that doesn't mean I have to like it. If King Henry did and said things like this in the modern age, he would be vilified, not revered. And it's hard to remove myself from that mindset, although I do intend to try.
Going forward with the play, I'll continue to see King Henry as a leader who isn't above fighting dirty or making other people's lives (ie. the French) miserable. His famous "Once more unto the breach" (813) speech is still somewhat moving despite its violence, but I look at it in a different light now that I know what he could have incentivized his countrymen to do if the Governor hadn't surrendered.
Shakespeare, William. The Norton Shakespeare: Histories. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.
While reading Henry V, I was pretty ambivalent toward the titular character until partway through Act 3. What was the tipping point, you may ask? Look no further than Act 3, Scene 4, where our favorite(?) king threatens the governor of a French city with mass murders and rapes. As you do.
The scene starts out simple enough, with King Henry beseeching the Governor to give up while the getting is good: "If you surrender now, we'll be chill. But if you make us come in there, we'll have no choice but to rape your wives and daughters and kill your infants." I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but the message is still intact. King Henry actually says, "What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause, If your pure maidens fall into the hand Of hot and forcing violation..." (817). So, not only are we getting some pretty awful threats along the lines of raping wives and daughters and impaling babies on pikes, we also get a nice dose of victim blaming. Am I even supposed to like this guy at this point?
Reading this play through the lens of a college student in the 21st century is assuredly a different experience than reading it when it was first published. King Henry's speech here was the moment my dislike of him solidified after a little over 2 acts of previous characterization. He seemed like a decent enough guy, though cocky like most would expect a king to be. He ordered the execution of his traitorous subordinates, but that seems par for the course for an English monarch of the era.
I understand that his siege of the French city is no different, and that war is brutal and ugly. These things happened then and they continue to happen now; but that doesn't mean I have to like it. If King Henry did and said things like this in the modern age, he would be vilified, not revered. And it's hard to remove myself from that mindset, although I do intend to try.
Going forward with the play, I'll continue to see King Henry as a leader who isn't above fighting dirty or making other people's lives (ie. the French) miserable. His famous "Once more unto the breach" (813) speech is still somewhat moving despite its violence, but I look at it in a different light now that I know what he could have incentivized his countrymen to do if the Governor hadn't surrendered.
Shakespeare, William. The Norton Shakespeare: Histories. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al., W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.
Comments
Post a Comment