Moral Hal
Henry V makes several morally questionable decisions. He abandons and banishes Falstaff, his closest friend, father figure, and mentor. He invades a foreign country without provocation. He executes a handful of his own men. Once he journeys abroad, he threatens to unleash “The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand” to “defile the locks of… shrill-shrieking daughters” who live in the besieged town of Harfleur. And finally at the climatic battle of Agincourt, Henry orders his men to kill fifteen hundred captured French soldiers. The defense for each of these acts is grounded in the necessity of “the state” to dominate “the biologic” if it is going to survive. For example, Henry must order the deaths of his prisoners or else they could take up arms again and reenter the battle. Or Henry must execute his friends who betrayed him or else they will breed disorder within his ranks. These defenses are not without merit, but they must be understood within the proper framework. Further, they do not address the morality of Hal directly.
Since he operates under a monarchal system, Henry V is the embodiment of the state, but he is also a man. While it may be moral for a king to hang a thief, it is certainly not moral for a man to murder his boon companion. In the end, however, Hal’s humanity, which is deeply rooted in the tavern with Falstaff, saves him. In more than one moment of ambiguity Henry laments the actions he must take in order to protect the realm. It is these moments that hint the man is separate from the king and therefore capable of moral action.
A Little Touch Of Theory In The Night
There are inorganic systems at work in the world. The rock cycle. The water cycle. The flow of continental plates on oceans of magma. These systems operate according to the laws of nature. They are blind to, and operate in ignorance of, the other value systems that make up our world.
One day several billion years ago the inorganic systems operating in some primordial ooze, produced something that we could classify as life. This life operated with a different value set than the inorganic systems that produced it. The purpose of this life was to live and it began to evolve in an effort to seek advantages to stave off the inevitable regression to an inorganic system –death.
As life evolved from single cell organisms, to plants, to animals it eventually produced humans. These humans produced a society because as a group they were better able to survive than as individuals. This new society operated with a different value set than the life that produced it, and eventually society began to protect itself instead of life. As a result the purpose of society was, and still is, to perpetuate itself, just as the purpose of life had been to live.
But as society developed more complex systems in order to perpetuate itself, it produced ideas of fairness and justice. These ideas operated with a different value set than the society that produced them, and eventually the notions of justice and equality were seen to be superior to the societies that produced them. As a result the purpose of these ideas were to perpetuate themselves by reshaping the societies that produced them.
These systems have been and still remain in conflict with each other –the social versus the biologic and the intellectual versus the social. It is within these systems that we operate.
To put the same idea in slightly different terms. Everything that can be named can be placed into four categories that can be arranged in an ascending order of morality. The categories are inorganic, biologic, social, and intellectual. Morality can be defined as a higher category dominating a lower category. Evil can be defined a lower category dominating a higher one. Therefore it is moral for the state to execute a person who sold military secrets to an enemy state because that person’s actions threatened the continuance of the state itself. A higher category of morality, the social, dominated a lower category, the biologic. By the same token, it is evil for a state to enslave a particular group of people despite the economic advantages that such a maneuver would provide because that would be a lower moral category, the social, dominating a high moral category, the intellectual. Morally the idea of equality must dominate the economic needs of the state.
With this framework in mind, we can examine the actions of Prince Hal and later King Henry V and gain a broader understanding of his morality, morality in general, and the importance of his sometimes ambiguous statements and actions.
The Banishment of Falstaff
As Derek Peat explains in his article “Falstaff Gets the Sack” Hal’s rejection of the portly knight at the end of Henry IV Part 2 is generally seen as the final step Hal must take in his development towards Kingship. To embrace Falstaff would be to conflate the court and the tavern. It would also show Hal making the mistake of Richard II or Edward II, that of giving favors to favorites in lieu of proper state administration. Instead we see Hal put aside personal feelings and desires and put what is best for the kingdom above what may be, if not best for him, easiest for him.
Therefore Hal has done the moral thing. As King, as the embodiment of the state itself, Hal has rejected his hedonistic impulse. Sixteenth century English society could not function without it’s monarch. If Hal were to abandon the throne, or worse accept the throne but fail to live up to the responsibility, society would suffer. Biologic values would dominate Social values. This would be evil. By rejecting Falstaff, Hal asserts the importance of Society over that of a single man’s desire.
And yet, this scene has been called by many critics the most heartbreaking in all of Shakespeare. There is something so personal in Falstaff’s rejection that it seems difficult to accept as a simple given that Hal did the right thing. That ‘something’ is the intellectual values of loyalty and love coming to the fore.
Hal and Falstaff laugh together. They play together. And there are times when Falstaff instructs Hal in the ways of the tavern and as a result the ways of man. Hal may very well come to love Falstaff, but more importantly we, the audience, love Falstaff. He is funny and charming and his antics, roguish though they may be, seem harmless. What matter the loss of a few napkins to an inn keeper when men are heading off to war? Falstaff conspires with us every time he breaks the fourth wall. And each time he does this, he is life affirming. He damns foolish honor and the pride of nobles. In twenty first century society, a society that has endured the horrors of World War and the indifference of nuclear warfare, Falstaff’s words are welcome and endearing. His verve and zest for life are inspiring. So it is easy for us to wink and nod at his lies and cowardice.
As a man, not as a king, Hal owes much to Falstaff. And in his final rejection Hal is allowing societal values to dominate intellectual ones. But much like another prince, Hal’s will is not his own. What saves Hal from descending into evil are the conditions of Falstaff’s banishment. After his admonishment of the old man, the new King Henry adds, “For competence of life I will allow you, That lack of means enforce you not to evil: And, as we hear you do reform yourselves, We will, according to your strengths and qualities, Give you advancement.” Henry gives Falstaff an allowance, and the promise to reconsider the banishment should Falstaff at all reform his vice. Thus Hal stands, as he often does, with a boot in the tavern and a boot in the court. He is a king working to value the state and a man who understands the human consequences of his actions.
The Call To War
As he lay dying, Henry IV, the man who always wanted to strike up a crusade for Jerusalem, tells his son and heir to put off the civil wars of home by uniting the kingdom against a foreign enemy. This seems, from a modern perspective, an incredibly evil thing to do. One country should not subject it’s neighbor to the ravages of war as a means to build comradery among it’s landed elite. The human cost alone is unimaginably sickening.
However, at the start of the his reign Henry V calls together his nobles and sends demands to the King of France, demands which threaten war. Again we see Henry asserting societal values above all else. And again we see him struggle with the decision. He asks regarding the demands he has made of the French, “May I with right and conscience make this claim?”
The Archbishop of Canterbury replies “The sin upon my head, dread sovereign!”
Henry for his part is concerned that his French claims will be unjust. It would appear he does not want to go to war simply to cobble together squabbling nobles. He is searching for a justification because he has stood next to Falstaff and seen “pitiful rascals” marching towards their deaths. He has heard Falstaff tut, tut and call them “food for powder” and “good enough to toss.”
Moments later Henry shows another flash of self awareness when the King of France responds to his demands with a box of tennis balls. Harry responds with a blistering speech that cast a certain amount of responsibility for the impending invasion back on the Dauphin, and he ends his speech with, “Tell the Dauphin His jest will savor but of shallow wit, When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.” This awareness that thousands will weep, on both sides, is further evidence of the intellect behind the societal mask. The pure Machiavel cares not for the number of casualties. The calculations for war are always mathematical and nothing else. Henry is something more. He wants to preserve his England, but he is aware of the kind of England he is preserving.
Another Fall of Man
This same sense of conscience can be seen in Act II Scene 2 of Henry V. Once again Hal must reject a former friend. While Scroop is not given the development of Falstaff, Robert Kelly explains that as a matter of historical fact Scroop and Prince Hal were often bed fellows and playmates. This is a fact the Elizabethan audience would have been quite aware of. What is remarkable about this rejection compared to the rejection of Falstaff is the extreme punishment that accompanies the rejection and the way in which the King chooses to deliver the news.
Falstaff was banished and given the hope of a reprieve, though he did not live to claim it. Scroop, along with two other traitors, are killed. The reason for the discrepancy is the nature of their crimes. Roguish Falstaff, in Hal’s view, is not a threat to the country. Therefore he is banished. But Scroop intended to sell his “King to slaughter, His princes and his peers to servitude, His subjects to oppression and contempt And his whole kingdom into desolation.” Henry goes on to say that he is not worried about himself, he only cares for the safety and integrity of his kingdom. “Touching our person seek we no revenge; But we our kingdom’s safety must so tender, Whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws We do deliver you.” Henry is aware that if left alive not only would these traitors continue to be a threat to England, but to ignore the law for personal reasons would create a threat of a different kind. Therefore these “Poor miserable wretches,” must go to their deaths.
There is a question that lingers, however. Why go through the rouse of creating (or reporting) a drunkard who railed against the king and then seeking the advice of what to do about him from the condemned? It is clear that Henry already knows of their guilt, Chorus has told us so. And Henry himself passes them letters with the foreshadowing statement, “And know, I know your worthiness.” Clearly Henry wants to trap these men into saying the drunkard deserves no mercy. The reason for this is, Henry is aware of the fact that the justification for killing these men is grounded in the defense of the society. Therefore, his trap accomplishes two things. First it serves to demonstrate the hypocritical nature of the condemned; these are men without honor and without conviction. And second Henry’s trap implies that had the condemned offered mercy to the drunkard, Henry would have offered mercy to them. Thus the ruse reaffirms Henry’s humanity.
Finally in this scene, there is Henry’s line to Scroop, “I will weep for thee; For this revolt of thine, methinks, is like Another fall of man.” This line too is revelatory because we once again see Henry bearing the burden of his office and lamenting the choices he has to make. This arouses our sympathy for the king because we see the personal toll this kind of order takes on him.
Guilty in Defense
Perhaps the most troubling of Henry’s acts is the threat he makes to the Governor of Harfleur. Indeed Theodor Meron, international attorney, says, “A commentator on the modern law of war would be hard pressed to offer a more terrifying catalog of violations of the law of war than those Henry threatens before the walls of Harfleur.” Neither the raping of innocent women, nor the dashing out of brains of old men, nor the spitting of infants upon pikes while their mothers scream would preserve English society. Henry cannot reasonably rely on the idea of societal values morally dominating biologic values in this case, as rape, pillage, and plunder would only weaken the moral fiber of his army, and his country.
The Governor surrenders in the face of Henry’s threats, and Henry commands his uncle Exeter to use mercy in the disposition of the citizens of Harfleur. But do we not believe the threats Hal makes?
Quite simply: No we do not.
Henry always acts honorably. Herbert Rothschild says, “The striking contrast between the extremely unjust things Henry threatens and the extremely just things he does assures us that [Henry] is at all times aware of, and subject to, justice and judgment.” The contrast between Henry’s words and actions in this scene is notable precisely because of his close relationship with Falstaff. Henry understood the power of rhetoric even when he was dueling Hotspur. Falstaff would have only reenforced Hal’s rhetorical prowess. Given the sum total of Henry’s actions, including his willingness to hang a thief who had been a friend, and given Henry’s close relationship with the loudest, liar in England, it is not unreasonable to discount his threats here.
Put simply, if Henry learned nothing else from Falstaff he learned to lie well.
Then Every Soldier Kill His Prisoners
The final act we must consider is Hal’s command to kill the french prisoners during the battle of Agincourt. Charles Edelman puts forth a textual defense citing powerful evidence that the text itself is contradictory and inconsistent. He claims these inconsistencies would have been corrected during production. Indeed in many productions, including Kenneth Branaugh’s popular film adaptation, the lines where Henry orders his soldiers to murder unarmed men are left out. But I think this is too easy and too unsatisfying of an excuse for Henry.
If the battle must be fought, then the battle must be won. This is the rule of societal value. The time for moral debate was in the time before the battle began and perhaps after the battle has ended. In the moment, however, Henry must look to the needs of his army above all else. To favor the biologic in this moment is to ignore both societal values and intellectual ones.
We must consider that at the time of the order, the battle is still raging, the issue is still in doubt. Though the French forces are in shambles, they still far outnumber the English. Further Henry is not fighting a modern war, with modern weapons. One man, or a small group of men, cannot guard a larger group of men. Prisoners must be guarded by a like number of guards. Given the opportunity to overwhelm their captors, regroup and then reenter the fray, the French could have very well turned the day around. Henry made the only decision he could have made.
And further distinction is made between the soldiers Henry kills and the luggage boys the French kill. The soldiers are fighting men engaged in a violent, bloody profession. The luggage boys are children incapable of ever defending themselves. Henry operates in advance of another general who reminds us that war is hell all the time. We don’t play at war; we fight a war. And we must fight to win.
Conclusion
The question has always been, can intellectual values exist without a society to support them? If intellectual values dominate a particular society to the point where that society can no longer fend off the laws of the biologic jungle, the laws of might makes right, can the intellectual values endure? Hal seems to be a pretty good answer to the question. Preserve society, he says, but bend that society towards humanity. Herbert Rothschild puts it thusly, “Henry emerges as a glorious conqueror and a human being, one we can simultaneously admire for his achievement and relate to in his struggle.”