A LITTLE TOUCH OF HARRY IN THE NIGHT

Shakespeare wrote two groups of history plays — eight plays in all — that are sometimes referred to as the first Henriad and the second Henriad, because, oddly enough, they both involve kings named Henry and they more or less constitute a sequence, although it's not known whether Shakespeare intended them as a "cycle." They concern the period between the late 1300s and the late 1400s, but were written all out of order, like our modern "Star Wars," sort of. They tell the story of the War of the Roses — how it came about and how it ended with the House of Tudor — in the person of Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry VII — claiming the crown and healing the country. (Shakespeare was adept at complimenting the sitting monarch, as well as insulting her/him).

The first Henriad — first because Shakespeare wrote them first, not because they come first in history — is made up of these four plays: Henry VI, parts 1, 2 and 3 and Richard III. These are all early works of Shakespeare, and the only one I’ve read so far is Richard III. Richard is the "deformed" king who boldly proclaims in his opening monologue "since I cannot prove a lover ... I am determined to prove a villain." And, indeed, villainy follows on every page. It's an exciting play with a colorful, well-spoken antagonist, a gaggle of sassy queens and a collection of cold-blooded murders, most notably of the child princes in the Tower of London. I'm a bit apprehensive that the three Henry VI plays leading up to Richard III won't be quite as fun, so I've put off reading those, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. The thing about Shakespeare, I've learned from some of his less famous plays, is that even at his "worst" he's still the best.

The second and more famous Henriad takes place earlier in English history and is made up of Richard II, Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, and Henry V. This sequence, which features the immortal boozer Falstaff, I’ve just completed.

The basic story of the second Henriad is this: Richard II is not a very good king. He makes questionable decisions. He has favorites who don’t deserve to be favorites. He believes kings rule by divine right and thus don’t have to merit the privilege of leadership. He banishes his cousin Henry Bolingbroke because Bolingbroke is an upstart and likes to challenge people to duels and whatnot. Bolingbroke’s a thorn in Richard’s side (in actual history, he defeated Richard’s most beloved favorite, Robert de Vere, and Richard took revenge, though this isn’t really part of the play). So Bolingbroke is stripped of his land and banished, but he eventually sneaks back into England and demands all his property back. While he’s at it, he figures he might as well go for the crown, too, so he usurps the weak Richard, who is then murdered, and Henry Bolingbroke becomes King Henry IV.

Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, are basically about how Henry then seeks to legitimize his usurpation of the crown and comes into conflict with various rebel lords. The plays are also, most famously, about the journey of his son, Prince Hal, from his rowdy, drunken tavern days to his mature, responsible adulthood, when he hotly defeats the rebel Hotspur and coldly forsakes the debauched Falstaff (with the crushing and all too public "I know thee not, old man"). Hal embraces the duties of kingship as Henry V.

Henry V is mostly about the young king's brassy attempt to conquer France. The French, of course, are loath to "give our vineyards to a barbarous people," the crude beef-eaters of Britain, but in the end they are soundly vanquished — at the famously lopsided battle of Agincourt — and do just that. One of the play's best features is its portrait of the French as a rather effete and conceited and ineffectual people — a wrong but amusing stereotype that persists to the present.

More than anything, I've come to think of these plays as Shakespeare's macho offerings. They are about proving one's manhood in various ways. They are about war and swaggering boastfulness and brotherhood (the phrase "band of brothers" comes from Henry V). They are about conquest — of countries and women. Several passages refer to how a bonus of war is that you get to viciously rape your enemy's women. Falstaff and Hal have an explicit conversation about this (like war is mainly just an excuse for men to behave as badly as they desire, under the cloak of patriotism — a notion that still has currency), and in one of the most disturbing passages, King Henry V urges the French at Harfleur to surrender peacefully, then brutally outlines what will happen to the women if they don't.

The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins...

What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?...

If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;

Yikes. I want to rewatch "Henry V," the Kenneth Branagh movie, to see if this language appears there. It's hard to bear, like Shakespeare's villifying of Jews and blacks, even allowing its historical context. It's a bit of ugliness that stands side by side with his accomplishment of overwhelming beauty. I don't really understand attempts to make it seem other — either better or worse — than what it is.

One thing that really appeals to me about the Henriads is that they took place when kings were expected to actually go into battle. There was no sitting at home while, like our own leader, you blithely send the country's youth to slaughter. The phrase "a little touch of Harry in the night" — spoken by the play's Chorus — refers to King Henry V's attempt to provide courage and heart to his men on the dark eve of a dark battle. And this little touch of Harry makes all the difference. Dying for your country has a whole new ring when the leader of your country is willing to die at your side.