We went to a panel discussion on Monday about Henry V which had been billed as exploring the notion of a just war. It was really a discussion about how the concepts of king and war are constructed in the play, but things really got fascinating when an audience member who had been a trained actor in London and was deployed last year to Afghanistan in the British military took the floor and gave everyone a serious dose of reality. He loves the play, and he talked about English military and political history as well as theatrical history, but mostly he talked about how true the play is to various experiences of a soldier, particularly before battle. Much of the audience clearly wanted to quietly digest his observations, but he was unfortunately followed by a noxiously self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing local poet who went on a lengthy anti-American rant to nobody’s illumination.
The evening really made me wonder at how thoroughly Shakespeare presents the war as unnecessary. The crowning moment comes in the wooing of Katherine, Henry’s “capital demand” in France’s surrender. He has won her through the war, but then starts over and wins her through wooing. Why not save 10,000 lives and try wooing first? Would I have had an easier time wooing Lisa if I had first conquered JP? Well, maybe, but would it have been worth the cost to the good people of JP?
I’d like to see the panelists discuss just war as we were promised, but I suppose you go to a panel discussion with the panel you have, not the panel you wish you had.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Just war in Henry V
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My own opinion is that Shakespeare is forever presenting the problem of what to do with soldiers when the war is over. Or, at least, various aspects of the differences between what makes a good soldier and what makes a good citizen. Or in this case, a good ruler.
I think that Shakespeare presents the war as unnecessary but not as avoidable. Harry wants the war, the Dauphin wants the war, the church wants the war... yes, the two nations could have avoided the war, and if I remember correctly there are early French-language scenes where Katherine comically prepares for marrying the English King before the invasion, which underscores your point. But neither Harry nor the Dauphin feel they can rule without being good soldiers first, and having in one case failed and the other succeeded, they both fail to be successful rulers.
Thanks,
-V.
And there's a fascinating contrast between the noble soldier returning home to be a hopefully noble leader vs. the common soldier returning home, of whom a prominent example in Henry V is Pistil who vows to “steal home, and there I’ll steal!” Henry’s speech at Harfleur describes his soldiers as animals, uncontrollable and vicious, and while they are somewhat redeemed by Agincourt (and by thoughtful discussion before Agincourt), reintegration of the soldiers is clearly a difficult question.
Aside from the British soldier at the discussion, there was also an active-duty member of the US Air Force in the audience. He challenged the poet to come with him to volunteer at an orphanage in Haiti, where he was headed in the spring. At the discussion, the biggest question appeared to be whether it was possible to reintegrate a Harvard student rather than how to reintegrate our soldiers. A refreshing change.
Post a Comment