DizertačNÍ práce david Livingstone Univerzita Palackého Olomouc 2011

Addendum

The thesis began with an explanation as to my interest in the subject. I then moved on to a summary of various categories of minor characters and the ways in which they make dissident readings of the plays possible. I continued with a summary of the complete oeuvre of Shakespeare examining the manner in which the order/disorder dichotomy is developed in the plays. I then turned to a short analysis of A Midsummer Night’s Dream making use of it as a case study for the use of minor characters providing a critical alternative to the ‘mainstream’ apparent message. The final three sections examined what I referred to as the Hal/Henry trilogy, Henry IV pt. 1, Henry IV pt. 2 and Henry V. I was interested in giving an underground reading to these plays, attempting to find a consistent line of treatment for this, in my opinion, possibly, Shakespeare’s greatest ‘tragedy’. In order to do this I made use of the various dissident voices occurring throughout the three plays. The work culminated with an analysis of Henry V which is, according to my reading, the most misunderstood play in the entire Shakespearian canon, precisely because these minor characters have been ignored, silenced or minimised.

I attempted to demonstrate that there is an alternative anti-war reading of this Shakespeare’s possibly most ‘nationalistic’ play. I made mention of the film treatments of the plays, Henry V in particular, and the manner in which they tended to ignore these dissident voices thereby creating one-sided and jingoistic interpretations. The work concluded with an addendum categorizing the minor characters in the plays.

The Hal/Henry trilogy as I call it: Henry IV pt 1, Henry IV pt 2, Henry V are the fullest picture in Shakespeare of the coming of age of a young man, in this case a king. I argue that the three plays as taken together are a cohesive tragedy wherein Henry becomes the thing he initially despises. Hal, at the beginning of Henry IV pt 1 has gone underground, become a dissident, so to speak, disillusioned with the dirty politics of the regime, with its constant bickering over power and influence, ruled over by his usurper father Henry IV. Falstaff, a minor/major character or in other words, a minor character who could not be shut up, becomes Hal’s foster father in a sense, opening up an alternative underground world to him. This new world often parallels the ‘surface’ world, offering Hal new ways of looking at politics, nationalism, heroism, honour, etc. Hal begins to see through the system and ‘drops out’ of society, so to speak. Hal is thus trained to become an alternative type of King, one who understands the various levels of society, but who most of all, understands himself.

In the Henry IV plays, Shakespeare created one of his comic masterpieces, Falstaff, who embodies everything disorderly. The scenes with Falstaff often mirror the scenes in the court, providing a satirical disorderly view of the orderly world of politics and power. Falstaff could also be seen as a foster father figure teaching Hal to see through the hypocrisy of the court, ruled over by his usurper father. Falstaff ridicules a number of areas: the legal system, the military, chivalry, honour, marriage, etc.

When Henry IV dies and Hal ascends the throne as Henry V, he is faced with an essential decision. Does he employ the insight and wisdom attained through his ‘internship’ with Falstaff or does he follow in his father’s footsteps of Machiavellian dirty politics? In a sense he does both. He makes use of the lessons learned with Falstaff to become a master of political manipulation and hypocrisy, outdoing his mediocre father and achieving worldly success at the expense of his own soul.

At the end of the second part Hal rejects him and takes upon himself the responsibility of the monarch. The relationship between Hal and Falstaff and the eventual rejection scene rank amongst the most debated areas in all Shakespearian scholarship starting with the groundbreaking work of Maurice Morgann in 1898. My guess is that one’s preference depends a great deal on one’s own personality. I, however, lead to the liberal side, mourning the rejection and feeling that something essential is lost in the transformation into the ‘hero’ king.

Falstaff is rejected and along with him, the humour and irony which made Hal so human in the first two plays. The play Henry V chronicles the invasion of a sovereign nation and all the bloodshed which that entails. The play has been lauded as a celebration of English nationalism. A closer look, however, reveals a different story. This alternative, dissident reading is told, once again, by the minor characters. Henry V continually employs so-called ‘foreshadowing’ and ‘echoing’ which serve to satirize and call into question the rhetoric and values of the mainstream plot, i.e. the defeat of the ‘decadent’ French by the underdog English, all sanctioned, of course, by God himself.

Falstaff’s former cronies: Pistol, Nim and Bardolph along with certain new minor characters, Fluellen and Williams, and possibly the Princess Catherine scenes, act as ongoing critical voices of the events of the play, mostly unconsciously I should add. Whether this was Shakespeare’s actual intention is debatable. I would argue that it was due to the consistency in which it is employed and because of the overall picture Shakespeare gives us throughout his oeuvre of dirty politics: King Lear, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, the Henry VI plays, Richard II, Richard III, the list could go on and on.

Hal/Henry had the potential, like Hamlet, to be a different kind of King, a philosopher King, a playful King who could have brought his subjects together and to quote King Lear (3.4:33) have shown “the heavens more just” instead of merely following the advice of his physically and mentally sick father to “busy giddy minds/with foreign quarrels” Henry IV pt. 2, (4.3:342-343)

In my reading, this trilogy of plays, can be understood as a tragic coming-of-age novel wherein the King is a success in a worldly sense, but in the process loses his soul.

The plays of William Shakespeare, whoever he may have been, are alive and well. This is due to a number of reasons, among which is the fact that they still speak to the world today, whether that be in terms of politics, love, family relationships, etc. Shakespeare also resists attempts to embody a particular political agenda. Amazingly, his plays continue to generate readings diametrically opposed to each other.

Having said this, I acknowledge that my own reading is merely one of a range of possible interpretations. Nevertheless, I believe it a viable one. Shakespeare rises above national and period prejudices. His plays almost universally seemingly reinforce the system of order as outlined by E. M. Tillyard. When, however, one reads through the lines, alternative interpretations become possible. One means of doing this is to pay attention to the minor characters and so-called throwaway scenes, who and which at first glance seem of little importance. I have attempted to demonstrate that they actually could be comprehended as keys opening up alternative ‘dissident’ readings.

19. 
    
    Download 491.65 Kb.
    
    Share with your friends: