One of the main reasons I blog is so that I can do feminist reads of things and not be teased for being a rabid liberal feminist. It is tiresome to make feminist comments (of any sort) in real life.
So, in Henry V, Harry's claim to the French throne is tenuous, due to a law prohibiting women (or descendants of women) from inheriting: "In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant: 'No woman shall succeed in Salique land.'" Harry allows himself to be convinced by the Archbishop of Canterbury (who has questionable motivations, at best) that this law doesn't apply to him, and runs off to conquer France and the French princess.
Now the bilingual wooing scene is genius, but I'm not sure I approve. Harry is clearly masterful--he gets what he wants, he is a remarkable orator, he has a keen sense of justice and is possibly even right to turn his back on his old friends in his new role as king (although I'm not sure on this point). But he sweeps through France and the French princess with the same speed and sweet talking, and it all just seems a little fast.
The wooing scene, from the beginning in which Queen Isabel leaves to review the treaty with the men, asserting that "I will go with them: / Haply a woman's voice may do some good, / When articles too nicely urged be stood on," shows the mediating power of women. Moreover, we see when Harry begins to speak with Katherine, the princess, that although her English is quite basic, she has learned some English in an attempt to bridge the gap between them.
The rhetoric of Harry's wooing is remarkable. At his flattery, she quickly replies, "O bon Dieu! les langues des hommes sont pleines detromperies"--the tongues of men are full of deceits. At which Harry must change his tact and simply appeal to her pity and his inability to speak well (which just clearly isn't true--I don't know if he actually was plain, but Kenneth Branagh sure is, which makes it convincing--but if nothing else, Harry can speak well and we see it throughout the play, from the speeches to his men to his obvious expertise at wooing). Once he starts to get Katherine and know that he's gotten her, he insults women: "I will tell thee in French; which I am sure will hang upon my tongue like a new-married wife about her husband's neck, hardly to be shook off." If that is what he thinks women are like, why is he bothering with marriage? (Because women are something like land--worth conquering and ruling.)
The rhetoric of Harry's wooing is remarkable. At his flattery, she quickly replies, "O bon Dieu! les langues des hommes sont pleines detromperies"--the tongues of men are full of deceits. At which Harry must change his tact and simply appeal to her pity and his inability to speak well (which just clearly isn't true--I don't know if he actually was plain, but Kenneth Branagh sure is, which makes it convincing--but if nothing else, Harry can speak well and we see it throughout the play, from the speeches to his men to his obvious expertise at wooing). Once he starts to get Katherine and know that he's gotten her, he insults women: "I will tell thee in French; which I am sure will hang upon my tongue like a new-married wife about her husband's neck, hardly to be shook off." If that is what he thinks women are like, why is he bothering with marriage? (Because women are something like land--worth conquering and ruling.)
One of the lines that Harry gives Katharine is that kings are above the law, that they are law and custom makers, in order to get her to kiss him. He says, "O Kate, nice customs curtsy to great kings. Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confined within the weak list of a country's fashion: we are the makers of manners, Kate; and the liberty that follows our places stops the mouth of all find-faults; as I will do yours, for upholding the nice fashion of your country in denying me a kiss." While in one sense it is clearly true that royalty and elites often disproportionately influence the formation of customs, it is not true that they ought to ignore the restraints of those customs.
2 comments:
interesting (if feminist) post.
a few thoughts:
1. i could be wrong, but i believe it was the french law that forbade women from inheriting the throne, while the british law allowed it. hence, the french's rejection of harry's claim (which, according to ancient land laws, was technically correct, i think).
2. i'm not so sure about your analysis of the wooing scene. first, as you mention, katherine started to learn english well before this scene which indicates that she knew it was coming. this gives some texture to their relationship, indicating that it probably wasn't settled over one relatively brief instance of wooing. second, i'm not sure harry's "capture" of katherine is just another instance of his conquering land and peoples. in fact, i find this scene to be a refreshing counterpoint to the typically powerful "king" harry. he seems to be on a level playing field with her. third, i think we can forgive harry (read: shakespeare) his dig against women hanging about their husbands' neck. clearly harry said that to give fodder to future 21st century feminists. fourth, i think it's clear that harry doesn't think of katherine as just another thing to be conquered. and, while it may chafe our modern sensibilities, i think there is much value to a "political" marriage (hence the french king's sincere hope that this marriage would bring peace to both kingdoms). it is a bonus if the couple actually likes each other (which seems to be evident in this case).
3. finally, while kings and queens certainly ought not to flaunt the customs of their people, i think there is something very important about what harry says about the royalty creating custom. while this sounds flat to our democratic ear (and the context of harry wanting to get katherine to kiss him might be a less than ideal case), i think there is definitely something to the idea of monarchs (and the ruling class in general) setting the tone for society with respect to manners, customs, and, yes, even PDAs. this is a great responsibility, probably much abused, but i'm sure it played a role in the civilization of the masses. would it be the case that this arrangement obtained today -- i'd love it if everyone had george bush's mannerisms!
Let's see: so on 1. you think that Harry was okay because he was following the laws of England? I guess this raises a need for an arbitor between the laws of the two peoples (or you [men] always have war...)
2. Goodness gracious, this all comes down to our (I think) disagreement on the question of settling.
3. Oh! I don't think that this is a question of the king and queen creating custom at all, but rather about them being above it (Harry says something to the effect of they'll forgive us for violating it). I think that this is the question of is the lawgiver above the laws or not.
Post a Comment