|
|
|
|
|
It is traditionaland somewhat Protestant-mindedto regard Prince Hals banishment of Falstaff, near the close of Henry IV (along with Hals coincident abandonment of Falstaffs Eastcheap world of sensual pleasures), as an act of mature emotional pragmatism underscoring a readiness to assume the crown, and with it, a demandingly anhedonic life in politics and military affairs. It is, in other words, necessary. In this light, Hals conversion from boyhood to manhood is sentimental and archetypal; he becomes representative of every youth who has ever got drunk and rebelled, if only theatrically, against his father and the world, only to reverse himself and, in an important moment, make amends and take his place in his family. In Hals case, the family is in the business of ruling England and avoiding deposition and death; Hals transformation from rogue to future ruler occurs as Hotspur, Glendower, Mortimer, and Douglas prepare to march on Bolingbroke and the kingdom.
What this tells us about Elizabethan playgoers is that they could, without strain on the suspension of disbelief, live the drama of the prodigal son vicariously and ritualistically within a familiar political realm. The same holds true for audiences today. An exemplary tale of more recent vintage might be found in the heir-apparent career of George W. Bush, whose sarcastic fecklessness looks to some people like integrity, in part because an anti-intellectual style is often taken in this country to indicate humility and trustworthiness, and also because the style suggests an occasion for the sort of archetypal transformation associatedin life, as in Henry IV,with a genuine talent for leadership. It could be argued that audiences are drawn to this contest between emotional and intellectual character, on the one hand, and, on the other, emotional character brought under the stresses that accompany a significant political rolethe kind thought to transform and ennoble the man, even as the man attempts to define and fulfill, on his own terms, his role. This latter dangerous path is illustrated, perhaps as a caution, in Hotspurs rigidly humorless and ultimately self-destructive approach to civil conflict. Be that as it may, we in the audiencewhether watching Henry IV in the theater or, possibly, sitting watching the evening news at homeenter a world in which unpredictable personality and psychology are superseded by considerations of known history or current realpolitik.
But are they? In the play, psychological problems and problems of character modify our view of history. Hal self-consciously presents himself as a trickster in need of reform. Then, in time to save his place in the worldand his neckhe tells his father (in words that leave room for vague doubts about his meaning, if not his intentions), I shall hereafter...be more myself. Hal seduces theater audiences into regarding him as compassionate and trustworthy, as a character who is flawed, human, able to learn and grow. Like his surrogate father, the reliably untrustworthy Falstaff, Prince Hal speaks with the wit and authority of his authors languagein this respect, he is quite unlike the Presidentand is unquestionably seductive. But trustworthy? With whom must a prodigal son preserve trust? In what sense must a king or a future king be trustworthy? What should he be trusted to do?
These are questions of politics. In Henry IV, a play densely populated with royals, politics exist inside the domain of family. Is it therefore reasonable to observe the growth of Hals character not only through acts performed on the battlefield but in the manner in which he assembles his own royal family? Can the climactic banishment of Sir John Falstaff be seen purely as a signal to the worldincluding the theater audiencethat the heir will not haunt taverns and brothels, that he will instead, behave like a proper king?
The banishment is hardly sudden when it comes, at the close of a process that begins near the opening of Henry IV: Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world! Falstaff famously dares in Act 2. I do, I will, Hal replies, prophetically. Following the play-war staged as the robbery at Gads Hill, and continuing through the actual war against the insurrection, Falstaff again and again voices his affection for the Prince, and his fear of rejection; and Hal gamely promises to reject him. Such remarks echo the pleas and slanders
page 1 2 >>
|
|
|
