Relationships Among Men in Shakespeare’s Plays
Unlike allegorical characters prevailing in mystery plays before the Renaissance (the most popular example being Everyman), Shakespeare’s characters effectively illustrate the emotions that define individuality in his plays. The result, realistic characterization, makes the fictional figures three dimensional, allowing the audience to better relate to the characters and creating more interest for the story. One intriguing phenomenon that exemplifies this realistic characterization is the platonic homosocial interaction among men that persists in many of Shakespeare’s plays. In Merchant of Venice, the love between Bassanio and Antonio puts Antonio in a “bond,” creating the tense situation which climaxes in Act 4.1. Bassanio had already postponed his and Portia’s wedding, and in this scene, announces that he would sacrifice all for Antonio, who competes with Portia for Bassanio’s love. Another instance occurs in Much Ado About Nothing, when Claudio feels betrayed in Act 2.1. He loves and trusts Pedro too much, allowing Pedro the chance to hurt him even more by taking his Hero. In Henry V, similar relationships occur in Pistol, Nim, and Bardolph and in Henry and his subjects: their love for one another both conflicts with and aggravates the more natural tendencies toward male competitiveness with exceptions and in contrast to the female relationships in the play.
Pistol and Nim begin their relationship as enemies, but by the end of Act 2.1, they have become tolerant of each other. In the scene, Bardolph reveals to the audience that Pistol and Quickly are married even though Quickly was betrothed first to Nim. Pistol and Nim argue over Hostess Quickly, but with Bardolph’s insistence and threats, the two become friends. At this point, the two do not love each other, but they have a mutual understanding, especially in terms of money, the only thing for which they care (Nim repeatedly asks if he will get his money while Pistol assures him every time). By the next act in which they appear, the two, along with Bardolph, share an intimate experience together; they mourn Falstaff’s death and listen solemnly to the eulogy Quickly gives.
Pistol has a line in 2.1 that suggests a deeper yet complicated finance-based relationship among himself, Nim and Bardolph: “And friendship shall combine, and brotherhood. / I’ll live by Nim, and Nim shall live by me” (2.1.99-100). After the 16th century, the word nim was slang for “to appropriate (something not one’s own); to steal, to filch, to pilfer (something)” (OED); in other words, a thief. One can interpret the line, then, as “A pistol will live by a thief, and a thief shall live by a pistol.” The character Boy, whom Pistol, Nim and Bardolph try to pressure into becoming a thief, reports this stealing later in Act 3.2, where all three take advantage of the war by selling off the items they steal (3.2.39-42). These cohorts trust one another since they are all members of the same illegal occupation together, but each of them feels that they are better than the others. Earlier in Act 3.2, the three cause chaos because each of them wants to be in charge. Bardolph hurries them all (3.2.1), because he is anxious to do more stealing. Nim complains about his “humors,” his excuse to convince everyone not to do anything. Pistol speaks up to the principled Captain Fluellen, “Abate thy rage, abate thy manly rage…” (3.2.22). Unlike the rest of the play where people try to prove themselves to be honorable, the three trump each other for the title of the best coward. Their relationship encourages a sarcastic bickering among them, which is not only the comic relief to the play but also accurately depicts competitiveness in friendships.
Pistol’s love for Bardolph also causes him to trust Captain Fluellen, whose Machiavellian view of war soon sours Pistol and Fluellen’s respect for each other. Fluellen first compliments Pistol, saying that he is “as valiant a man as Mark Antony, and he is a man of no estimation in the world, but I did see him do as gallant service” (3.6.11-13). But when Pistol asks him to plead with Duke Exeter for mercy on Bardolph, who had stolen a pax, Fluellen renounces him right away. Fluellen says, “For if, look you, he were my brother, I would desire the Duke to use his good pleasure, and put him to executions. For discipline ought to be used” (3.6.47-50). This justification for discipline in the battlefields shows a distinct merciless among loved ones in a specific situation. The soldiers and captains, working in close quarters, must develop a brotherhood together, one that also creates a competitive atmosphere to intensify hatred against the enemy. If they are easily distracted from this cause, this “band of brothers” would disintegrate; thus, Fluellen refuses to help Pistol and Bardolph because of his zeal for disciplined war.
Henry condemns the two because of his mercy and love for the French, and in doing so, shows his dominating side. He makes sure that “none of the French [are] upbraided or abused in disdainful language…” (3.6.101-2). Later, he also says to Catherine in Act 5.2, “…it is not possible you should love the enemy of France, Kate. But in loving me, you should love the friend of France, for I love France so well that I will not part with a village of it, I will have it all mine…” (164-167). Although his love is not directed to another man, his need for domination out of love exemplifies the alpha male attitude, the aggravation of competition within men in Shakespeare’s plays. Henry glorifies gruesome war images in many scenes: the mocking of the tennis balls (1.2.284-286), the pep talk with his soldiers (3.1.5-17), and the parley of Harfleur (3.3.111-118), but then softens the images with mercy, as in Act 3.3 when he tells Exeter to hold the soldiers back. Even though he intimidates France, he does not act on his words. He has no use for a country that becomes a wasteland after a war; he wants only a claim, which is why he wants to reign over it with Catherine – this way, he can also gain from the citizens love and respect not created from fear. This manipulative domination is one of his responsibilities as a king, to keep his subjects safe, but he provides no rest for himself; he has to constantly compete with his subjects for the divine right to rule over them. He also questions how much divine right he has; his father stole the throne, so the throne passed down the wrong line of blood. Henry must, then, hold more control over his subjects unless they question his illegitimacy.
Another reason for the alpha male attitude is pride, which is shown in Pistol and Williams’ interactions with Henry, causing both respect and argument. The exchanges usually begin with a polite greeting but quickly crescendos into disagreement, because Pistol and William, who are unaware they are actually speaking to the king in disguise, are both free to speak their minds. Despite the seeming hostility, the audience sees Pistol and Williams’ respect for Henry because of Henry’s better rhetorical style. Their pride, however, keeps them from expressing this respect, so they show it through aggression, which shows how men in Shakespeare’s plays subconsciously reveal their love for each other . Henry invites both Pistol and Williams to speak ill of himself, guiding the conversation toward bashing the king. Pistol compliments the king instead, “The King’s a…lad of life, an imp of fame…I love the lovely bully” (4.1.45-49). Intriguingly, however, Pistol despises despises Henry without his ceremonial habits of a king mostly, because Henry admits to being a kinsman of Captain Fluellen, whose refusal to help Pistol and Bardolph has left Pistol with a grudge. Pistol, then, upholds his pride, shows his dislike of Henry with the obscene fico, and leaves. Williams, on the other hand, shows his dislike for King Henry right away, because he thinks “the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make” for the deaths in the war (4.1.128-129). Despite Henry’s sound argument of “Every subject’s duty is the King’s, but every subject’s soul is his own,” Williams continues to pick a fight, assuring their meeting again for a physical conclusion to their dispute. Later, he declares it was Henry’s own fault for starting the exchange and refuses to accept any money when he is only being honest. His offended pride complements his honesty; if he acts the truth (“from the heart,” as Williams says), the respected king should also act the truth instead of putting on disguises in order to trick him afterwards, such as making him accuse the wrong person because of the cap exchange. This all leads to Henry’s soliloquy, because after interacting with these two, he feels as though he should not have to be responsible for these people. At the same time, he wants to take even more responsibility by taking over France.This illustrates Henry’s constant acting so that different roles he plays contradict with one another.
Henry shows his brief nontheatrical side in Act 4.6 when two dukes die, the most touching scene in the play. For a moment, he thinks that the Duke of York is still alive despite the wounds he has taken in the battlefield which Duke Exeter proves wrong in his description of York’s death. Most importantly, though, Exeter describes the actions between York and Suffolk preceding their deaths. While Henry provided gruesome images previously in the play, Exeter uses the first gentle words in his touching story that appear in Henry V. He says that York “kisses the gashes / That bloodily did yawn upon [the Duke of Suffolk’s] face” (4.6.14-15), and how York falls on Suffolk, their blood mingling, “sealed / A testament of noble-ending love” (4.6.26-27). This is the quintessence of homosociality, a relationship lasting even in death, because the two men went through so many obstacles together in the war. Exeter himself tears up during York’s display of affection and reveals his own sentimentality; his description of the scene causes Henry to also have “mistful eyes” (4.6.34). Unlike the other relationships previously described, this one has no competition, only brotherhood. This purity creates an atmosphere of love even during a time of chaotic war, and Shakespeare deems this scene important enough to be in its own single short scene. The other relationships in this play, as stated, have been a little unfriendly if not too competitive. For one scene, the audience sees a wholesome bond that contrasts widely to all the other scenes. This scene, thus, stands out, and reveals a true humanity in Henry, allowing him to love and proving his tears to not be an act.
Another distinction in this play is the limited number of women – Catherine, Alice, and Queen Isabel; the three women only appear in two scenes. Catherine and Alice have a humorous English lesson in Act 3.4, which leads Catherine to think that the English are too vulgar. Queen Isabel joins the men’s conference in Act 5.2, because “haply a woman’s voice may do some good / When articles too nicely urged be stood on” (93-4). Then Henry courts Catherine with Alice as an interpreter. The same type of homosocial relationship does not seem to apply to the female characters in the play. First, their social ranks as queen, princess, and maid may cause a rift in their relationships, and the ambitions of men and women are different here. Catherine, Alice, and Queen Isabel are three sensible women who do not need to trump each other in cowardice, have an appetite for war, dominate one another (since the Queen as mother already has authority over the other two), or have pride that gets in the way of their interactions with each other. At the same time, the audience does not see any intense adoration among the three of them, which makes them rather dull in comparison to the relationship between Suffolk and York described in Act 4.6.
The relationships between men in Shakespeare’s plays are intriguing to analyze, but they differ greatly. Although Pistol and Bardolph’s friendship does not appear as beautiful as York and Suffolk’s, they still care for each other, or else Pistol would not go out of his way to ask for his pardon. In this war, the men must learn to trust each other even if they do not understand exactly what they are fighting. So they must interact with one another even if their respect is tinged with animosity and competition. This conflict is what makes human psychology so interesting and why Shakespeare chooses to write his characters as individuals instead of archetypes.
