"This day is called the feast of Crispin," thus begins the famous band of brothers speech in Shakespeare's "Henry V." St. Crispin's day is, of course, today, October 25th, but Carol and I observed it last night by watching Acts IV and V of Kenneth Branagh's version of the great poet's last history play. Of all the different stage and screen versions that I have seen both of the play and of the speech, Branagh's is my favorite - I think he captures both the strengths and struggles of this warrior king.
I believe that at least part of what Shakespeare was doing as he
worked his way through these plays was to explore national leadership and that he made his final statements in his final play in this genre. In looking at "Henry V" it is both natural and easy to get caught up in all the specifics of the actual events portrayed by the play - what right did Henry have to invade France, what claim did he have to the French crown things of that nature.
All of that is there and those are certainly legitimate issues. But another way to look at this play is to bear in mind something that Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) wrote to a publisher who wanted to know the subject of her new novel. Evans' position was that art is not the subject, but the treatment of the subject. I think part of what Shakespeare is about in "Henry V" is looking at national leadership in crisis situations - the English go into the battle badly outnumbered, exhausted, sick and starving, but still prevail - how did they do that? Or more importantly how did Henry lead them to do that.
It is especially interesting that Shakespeare does not make use of a number of things available to him from his sources (Holinshed). Part of the English victory was due to Henry's strategy, but Shakespeare makes no mention of that. Henry fought with great valor during the battle - saving his brother's life among other things, but again Shakespeare makes no use of that material. Instead Shakespeare seems to eliminate all possible factors except the band of brothers speech, a speech that is like nothing else in Shakespeare or the rhetoric of the time.
Many people find fault with Henry for the way he deals with his soldiers the night before the battle, but I think we need to look at the whole act not just one scene. To me Act IV is all about Henry's agon, his struggle to find the way the lead his men to victory. He finds that way in the speech, a speech that creates something new - a band of brothers - I believe it speaks to something deep in our human nature. And while some say that the band of brothers lasts only for the duration of the battle, I think there is plenty of evidence in the text that it continues.
During the speech, Henry tells his army that they and this day will be remembered "from this day to the ending of the world." Regardless of how accurate that is, the image of the band of brothers had not only been remembered, but put to good use. In 1976 when we saw the RAF chapel in Westminster Abbey, I noticed that there were only nine words on the stained glass windows - "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers."
I believe that at least part of what Shakespeare was doing as he
worked his way through these plays was to explore national leadership and that he made his final statements in his final play in this genre. In looking at "Henry V" it is both natural and easy to get caught up in all the specifics of the actual events portrayed by the play - what right did Henry have to invade France, what claim did he have to the French crown things of that nature.All of that is there and those are certainly legitimate issues. But another way to look at this play is to bear in mind something that Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) wrote to a publisher who wanted to know the subject of her new novel. Evans' position was that art is not the subject, but the treatment of the subject. I think part of what Shakespeare is about in "Henry V" is looking at national leadership in crisis situations - the English go into the battle badly outnumbered, exhausted, sick and starving, but still prevail - how did they do that? Or more importantly how did Henry lead them to do that.
It is especially interesting that Shakespeare does not make use of a number of things available to him from his sources (Holinshed). Part of the English victory was due to Henry's strategy, but Shakespeare makes no mention of that. Henry fought with great valor during the battle - saving his brother's life among other things, but again Shakespeare makes no use of that material. Instead Shakespeare seems to eliminate all possible factors except the band of brothers speech, a speech that is like nothing else in Shakespeare or the rhetoric of the time.
Many people find fault with Henry for the way he deals with his soldiers the night before the battle, but I think we need to look at the whole act not just one scene. To me Act IV is all about Henry's agon, his struggle to find the way the lead his men to victory. He finds that way in the speech, a speech that creates something new - a band of brothers - I believe it speaks to something deep in our human nature. And while some say that the band of brothers lasts only for the duration of the battle, I think there is plenty of evidence in the text that it continues.
During the speech, Henry tells his army that they and this day will be remembered "from this day to the ending of the world." Regardless of how accurate that is, the image of the band of brothers had not only been remembered, but put to good use. In 1976 when we saw the RAF chapel in Westminster Abbey, I noticed that there were only nine words on the stained glass windows - "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers."
No comments:
Post a Comment